Moore v. Detention Officer Lawrence

S.D. Texas

Moore v. Detention Officer Lawrence

DecidedDecember 18, 2023

Docket4:23-cv-04443

StatusUnknown

This text of Moore v. Detention Officer Lawrence (Moore v. Detention Officer Lawrence) 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

Moore v. Detention Officer Lawrence, (S.D. Tex. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

December 18, 2023 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

CHERELLE MOORE, § CIVIL ACTION NO (SPN #2794152) § 4:23-cv-4443 Plaintiff, § § § vs. § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE §

§ DETENTION OFFICER § LAWRENCE and § DETENTION OFFICER § LUCKETT, § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM ON DISMISSAL The complaint filed by Plaintiff Cherelle Moore is dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. Dkt 1. Moore proceeds here pro se. She complains of the use of excessive force. She was an inmate of the Harris County Jail at the time of filing. The Clerk’s notice to pro se litigant of case opening was returned as undeliverable because she’s no longer at that location. Dkt 4. Online records also show that she’s no longer confined there. Notices are sent only to the address on file, and a pro se litigant is responsible for keeping the Clerk advised in writing of a current address. Local Rule 83.4. Moore hasn’t provided the Clerk with an accurate, current address. Under the inherent powers necessarily vested in a district court to manage its own affairs, this action is dismissed for want of prosecution. See FRCP 41(b); Link v Wabash Railroad Co, 370 US 626, 630–31 (1962); Clofer v Perego, 106 F3d 678, 679 (5th Cir 1997); James W. Moore, et al, 8 Moore’s Federal Practice § 41.51(8)(b) & (e) (Matthew Bender 3d ed 2017). Relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be granted upon a proper showing. See Link, 370 US at 635. The civil action filed by Plaintiff Cherelle Moore is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of prosecution. Dkt 1. Her motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Dkt 2. Any other motions are DENIED AS MOOT. SO ORDERED. Signed on December 18, 2023 , at Houston, Texas. Hon. Charles inet United States District Judge

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

December 18, 2023 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

CHERELLE MOORE, § CIVIL ACTION NO (SPN #2794152) § 4:23-cv-4443 Plaintiff, § § § vs. § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE §

§ DETENTION OFFICER § LAWRENCE and § DETENTION OFFICER § LUCKETT, § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM ON DISMISSAL The complaint filed by Plaintiff Cherelle Moore is dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. Dkt 1. Moore proceeds here pro se. She complains of the use of excessive force. She was an inmate of the Harris County Jail at the time of filing. The Clerk’s notice to pro se litigant of case opening was returned as undeliverable because she’s no longer at that location. Dkt 4. Online records also show that she’s no longer confined there. Notices are sent only to the address on file, and a pro se litigant is responsible for keeping the Clerk advised in writing of a current address. Local Rule 83.4. Moore hasn’t provided the Clerk with an accurate, current address. Under the inherent powers necessarily vested in a district court to manage its own affairs, this action is dismissed for want of prosecution. See FRCP 41(b); Link v Wabash Railroad Co, 370 US 626, 630–31 (1962); Clofer v Perego, 106 F3d 678, 679 (5th Cir 1997); James W. Moore, et al, 8 Moore’s Federal Practice § 41.51(8)(b) & (e) (Matthew Bender 3d ed 2017). Relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be granted upon a proper showing. See Link, 370 US at 635. The civil action filed by Plaintiff Cherelle Moore is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of prosecution. Dkt 1. Her motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Dkt 2. Any other motions are DENIED AS MOOT. SO ORDERED. Signed on December 18, 2023 , at Houston, Texas. Hon. Charles inet United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Moore v. Detention Officer Lawrence, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-detention-officer-lawrence-txsd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack