Norris v. Ledet

• Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
• Decided: September 3, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01083
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KELLY NELSON NORRIS CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 25-1083

RHONDA LEDET, ET AL. SECTION AO@(5)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION pro se

In May 2025, plaintiff, Kelly Nelson Norris, submitted a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the defendants, Warden Rhonda Ledet, Jason Bergeron, and Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government, alleging that he was denied the ability to 1 participate in rehabilitation programs. He requests monetary compensation and injunctive relief. His complaint was treatedi na sf odremfiac ipeanut pbeerciasuse he failed to pay the filing fee or file an application for leave to proceed . The Clerk promptly issued a notice of deficiency to Norris at the prison facility at which he was incarcerated when he submitted 2 his complaint. He did not respond. The undersigned then issued an Order instructing him to comply with the filing requirements and giving him additional time to submit a 3 completed pauper application or the required filing fee. The mail was returned as undeliverable on July 21, 2025, with a notation that Norris had been released from

1 ECF No. 1, Complaint. 2 3 EECCFF NNoo.. 34,, NOordtiecre. of Deficient Filing, 5/30/2025. 4 Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex. Plaintiff has made no attempt to correct the stated deficiency and has failed to comply with a direct court order to do so. No address correction has been made by Norris and it has been 35 days since the mail was returned. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of an actSioene bLianske dv .o Wn athbea sfahi lRu.r Ceo o.f the plaintiff to prosecute or comply with any order of the court. , 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962) (noting courts have inherent authority “to clear their calendars of cases that have rHeumlsaeiyn evd. Sdtaotrem oafn Tte xbaescause of the inaction or dilatorinessM ocfC tuhlleo upgahrt vie. sL ysneaeukginhg relief”); , 929B Fr.i2ndk m16a8n,n 1 v7. 1D a(5lltahs

CCoiru. n1t9y9 D1)e;p uty Sheriff Abner , 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988);p ro se , 813 F.2d 744, 749 (5th Cir. 1987). A litigan t Bisi rnl ovt. eExsteemllpet from compliance with relevant rulEeds woaf rpdrso vc.e Hduarrarils aCnodu nstuyb Ssthaenrtififv'se Dlaewpt.. , 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. p1r9o8 s1e); , 864 F. Supp. 633, 637 (S.D. Tex. 1994). A litigant who fails to comply with procedural rules has the burden of establishing exKceurssahb vl.e D neergolzeicetr, which is a strict standard requiring prBoirolf of more than mere ignorance. , 851 F.2d 1509, 1512 (5th Cir. 1988); , 660 F.2d at 593. See

All litigants are obligated to keep the Court advised of any address change. 5 EDLA Local Rules 11.1 and 41.3.1. The complaint form signed by Norris and used to

4 ECF No. 5. 5 Rule 11 provides that “[e]ach attorney and pro se litigant has a continuing obligation promptly to notify the court of any address or telephone number c2h ange.” Rule 41.3.1 provides that “[t]he failure of an initiate this action contains the following declaration: “I understand that if I am released or transferred, it is my responsibility to keep the Court informed of my whereabouts and failure to do so may result in this action being dismissed with prejudice.” ECF No. 1 at p. 5 (¶ VI, Declaration No. 2). “[T]he failure of a pro se litigant to notify the district court of an address change may be conLsiedweirse vd. Hbya rtdhye district court as an additional cause for dismissal for failure to prosecute.” , 248 F. App'x 589, 593 n. 1 (5th Cir. 2007). As noted above, despite acknowledging the obligation when he signed the complaint, Norris has failed to keep the Court apprised of a current mailing address as required by Local

Rule 11.1. His inaction has deprived the Court of the ability to communicate with himpr aon sde to advance his case on the docket. These failures are attributable to him alone, as a litigant. Accordingly, it is recommended that his lawsuit be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Local Rule 41.3.1. Norris is advised that failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation will result in dismissal of his lawsuit. A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after being served

with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district

pro se attorney or litigant to notify the court of a current e-mail or postal address may be considered cause for dismissal for failure to prosecute when a notice is returned to the court because of an incorrect address and no correction is made to the address for a period of 35 days from the return.” 3 court, provided that the p aDrtoyu hgalas sbse ve.n U sneirtvede dS ewrivtsh. nAouttioc.e A tshsa'nt such consequences will result from a feanil buaren cto object. ' , 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 6 1996) ( ) (citing 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)). RECOMMENDED Accordingly, fDorIS tMheIS SreEaDs oWnIsT eHxOpUreTs sPeRdE, JiUt DisI CE that Kelly Nelson Norris’ complaint be 3rd for failure to prosecute. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of September, 2025.

MICHAEL B. NORTH U N IT E D S T A T E S M A G I S T R A T E J U D_G__E_

6Douglass ' referenced the previously applicable ten-day period for the filing of objections. Effective D ecember 1, 2009, 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) was amended to extend the period to fourteen days. 4