1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JASON DUANE HEMPHILL, §

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-01238-E (BT)

§

THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF 

THE UNITED STATES 

GOVERNMENT, et al.,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed by pro se

Plaintiff Jason Duane Hemphill. This case was originally filed in the Fort 

Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas. On June 7, 2022, the case 

was transferred to the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas. That 

same day, the Court issued a Consent Form (ECF No. 9) and Notice and 

Instructions to a Pro Se Party (ECF No. 10). On June 9, 2022, the Court 

issued an order granting Hemphill leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 

No. 11). On June 21, 2022, the mail was returned to the Court as “RETURN 

TO SENDER, ATTEMPTED NOT KNOWN, UNABLE TO FORWARD.” 

(ECF No. 13 at 1; ECF No. 14 at 1.) Hemphill has failed to provide the Court 

with a new address. Therefore, this case should be dismissed without 

prejudice under Rule 41(b). 

Case 3:22-cv-01238-E-BT Document 15 Filed 06/22/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 54
2

Rule 41(b) allows a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to 

prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order. 

Griggs v. S.G.E. Mgmt., L.L.C., 905 F.3d 835, 844 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing

McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (per curiam));

accord Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 440 (5th 

Cir. 2016) (failure to comply with a court order); Rosin v. Thaler, 450 F. 

App’x 383, 383-84 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (failure to prosecute). “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 (1962)). 

Here, this litigation cannot proceed because Hemphill has failed to 

keep the Court apprised of his current address. Hemphill filed this case on 

May 27, 2022, and that same day, the Court mailed him Instructions to a 

Prisoner Pro Se Party, which advised him: “You must notify the Court if your 

address changes, or your case may be dismissed.” (ECF No. 5 at 1.) Hemphill 

has failed to provide the Court with a current address, and the Court is 

unable to communicate with him regarding his case. 

By failing to provide the Court with a current address, Hemphill has 

failed to comply with a court order and failed to prosecute his lawsuit. 

Dismissal without prejudice is warranted under these circumstances. The 

Court should dismiss Hemphill’s case without prejudice under Rule 41(b). 

Case 3:22-cv-01238-E-BT Document 15 Filed 06/22/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 55
3

SO RECOMMENDED.

Signed June 22, 2022.

____________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all 

parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of 

this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within 

14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV.

P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific 

finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for 

the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection 

that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will 

bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal 

conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the 

district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United 

Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

Case 3:22-cv-01238-E-BT Document 15 Filed 06/22/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 56