Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Lesford Mark Reid, a prisoner confined at the United States Penitentiary in Beaumont, Texas, filed a civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal for want of prosecution, and the court adopted this recommendation after finding the statute of limitations would bar future litigation due to the plaintiff's failure to update his address. The court dismissed with prejudice but allowed the plaintiff 30 days to provide current contact information to reopen the case.
Issues
- The court must determine whether to adopt the United States Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation regarding dismissal of the plaintiff's civil rights action filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics
- The court must decide whether to dismiss the action with prejudice, considering that the statute of limitations would bar future litigation and whether the plaintiff's failure to update contact information warrants a dismissal with prejudice
- The court must determine the appropriate sanction given the plaintiff's failure to update his address, considering that lesser sanctions would not serve the interests of justice and the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis
Holdings
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, ordering dismissal with prejudice of the civil rights action filed by prisoner Lesford Mark Reid. The dismissal is due to the plaintiff's failure to update his address, which prevents court contact, and the statute of limitations barring future litigation. However, the court allows the plaintiff to reopen the case within thirty days by providing his current address.
Remedies
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, dismissing the civil rights action with prejudice due to statute of limitations. However, the court lessened the sanction by allowing the plaintiff to reopen the case within thirty days if they provide their current address to the court.
Legal Principles
The court applied the Coleman v. Sweetin standard for dismissal with prejudice, requiring clear record of delay or contumacious conduct and finding lesser sanctions inadequate. Because the statute of limitations would bar future litigation, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate when the plaintiff's failure to update address prevents court contact, and monetary sanctions are futile due to in forma pauperis status.
Precedent Name
- Coleman v. Sweetin
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics
Judge Name
- Michael J. Truncale
- Zack Hawthorn
Passage Text
- Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge [Dkt. 41] is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in accordance with this memorandum order.
- Because the statute of limitations would bar future litigation of Plaintiff's claims, a dismissal would act as a dismissal with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice is appropriate only if there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff, and if lesser sanctions would not serve the interests of justice. Coleman v. Sweetin, 745 F.3d 756, 766 (5th Cir. 2014). In this case, Plaintiff has not exhibited a clear record of contumacious conduct, but his failure to update his address prevents the Court from contacting him. The Court has considered imposing lesser sanctions and found them inadequate to address the current situation. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the imposition of monetary sanctions is almost certainly futile. A dismissal is the only sanction available in this instance, but the Court will lessen the sanction by allowing Plaintiff to reopen the case by providing the Court with his current address within thirty days of the date the judgment is entered.