Majors v. Quinn

S.D. Texas

Majors v. Quinn

DecidedJuly 30, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-02422

StatusUnknown

This text of Majors v. Quinn (Majors v. Quinn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Majors v. Quinn, (S.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT July 31, 2025 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION

DAVID E. MAJORS, TDCJ # 02487798, § § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-2422 § MARVETTE L. QUINN, et al., § § Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff David E. Majors is incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ). He has not paid the filing fee. On June 17, 2025, the Clerk issued a notice of deficient pleading (Dkt. 4) instructing the plaintiff that, within thirty days, he was required to submit the $405 filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis, supported by a certified inmate trust-fund account statement for the six-month period before he filed the complaint. The notice warned the plaintiff that failure to comply could lead to dismissal of his case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Clerk supplied him with the necessary form. Major’s deadline for compliance was July 17, 2025. On July 24, 2025, Majors filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, to date, he has not complied with the instruction to submit a certified inmate trust-fund account statement. Under the inherent powers necessarily vested in a district court to manage its own affairs, the court determines that dismissal for want of prosecution is appropriate. See FED. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Gates v. Strain, 885 F.3d 874 (Sth Cir. 2018); Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 440-41 (Sth Cir. 2016) (a district court may dismiss an action

sua sponte for failure to prosecute an action or to comply with court orders). Relief from this order may be granted if the plaintiff makes a proper showing under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. At a minimum, a proper showing under Rule 60(b) requires compliance with all past instructions, including submission of a certified inmate trust-fund account statement. The Court ORDERS that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. All pending motions, if any, are denied as moot. The Clerk will provide a copy of this order to the parties. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on July 30 , 2025. Heorge a Plone GEORGE C. HANKS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT July 31, 2025 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION

DAVID E. MAJORS, TDCJ # 02487798, § § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-2422 § MARVETTE L. QUINN, et al., § § Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff David E. Majors is incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ). He has not paid the filing fee. On June 17, 2025, the Clerk issued a notice of deficient pleading (Dkt. 4) instructing the plaintiff that, within thirty days, he was required to submit the $405 filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis, supported by a certified inmate trust-fund account statement for the six-month period before he filed the complaint. The notice warned the plaintiff that failure to comply could lead to dismissal of his case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Clerk supplied him with the necessary form. Major’s deadline for compliance was July 17, 2025. On July 24, 2025, Majors filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, to date, he has not complied with the instruction to submit a certified inmate trust-fund account statement. Under the inherent powers necessarily vested in a district court to manage its own affairs, the court determines that dismissal for want of prosecution is appropriate. See FED. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Gates v. Strain, 885 F.3d 874 (Sth Cir. 2018); Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 440-41 (Sth Cir. 2016) (a district court may dismiss an action

sua sponte for failure to prosecute an action or to comply with court orders). Relief from this order may be granted if the plaintiff makes a proper showing under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. At a minimum, a proper showing under Rule 60(b) requires compliance with all past instructions, including submission of a certified inmate trust-fund account statement. The Court ORDERS that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. All pending motions, if any, are denied as moot. The Clerk will provide a copy of this order to the parties. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on July 30 , 2025. Heorge a Plone GEORGE C. HANKS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Majors v. Quinn, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/majors-v-quinn-txsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack