Watson v. Sheriff, Jefferson County

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: July 7, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00297
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION CALEB AUBREY WATSON § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-cv-297 SHERIFF, JEFFERSON COUNTY § REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Petitioner Caleb Aubrey Watson, a prisoner confined at the Jefferson County Correctional Facility, proceeding pro se, brings the above-styled petition for writ of habeas corpus. The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. Discussion On June 9, 2025, a Notice of Case Assignment was mailed to Petitioner. On July 1, 2025, the copy of the Notice mailed to Petitioner was returned to the court as undeliverable. The mail was sent to the last address Petitioner provided to the court. Petitioner has failed to provide the court with his current address or information necessary to contact him. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “This authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court’s inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962)). The orderly and expeditious disposition of cases requires that if a litigant’s address changes, he has a duty to inform the court of the change. Further, Eastern District of Texas Local Rule CV-11(d) requires pro se litigants such as Petitioner to provide the court with a physical address and keep the clerk advised in writing of a current address. The exercise of the power to dismiss for failure to prosecute is committed to the sound discretion of the court. See Green v. Forney Eng’g Co., 589 F.2d 243, 245 (5th Cir. 1979). By failing to provide the court with his current address, Petitioner has failed to diligently prosecute this case. Accordingly, this case should be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to FED. R. CIv. P. 41(b). Recommendation The above-styled action should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. Objections Within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. Clv. P. 72.

SIGNED this 7th day of July, 2025. Zack Hawthorn United States Magistrate Judge