IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

LUBBOCK DIVISION 

MARVIN GA YE THOMPSON, JR., 

Institutional ID No. 180489, 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Plaintiff, § 

V. § Civil Action No. 5:22-CV-091-M-BQ 

§ 

KELLY ROWE, et al., § 

§ 

Defendants. § 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Plaintiff Marvin Gaye Thompson, Jr. filed this 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on May 20, 2022, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. ECF 

No. 1. Under Special Order No. 3-251, this case was automatically referred to the undersigned 

United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial management, including preliminary screening under 

the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). ECF No. 3. Because Thompson has not updated his 

address, and thereby failed to comply with Court orders and prosecute his case, the undersigned 

recommends that the United States District Judge dismiss this action in accordance with Rule 41 (b) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

I. Background 

On July 7, 2022, the Court granted Thompson permission to proceed in forma pauperis 

(IFP). ECF No. 10. That order advised Thompson of his obligation to "promptly notify the Court 

of any change of address ... [ and that his] [ f]ailure to file such notice may result in this case being 

dismissed for want of prosecution." ECF No. 10, at 2 ~ 8. Thompson received similar 

admonishments when he initially filed this suit. See "Instructions to a Prisoner Pro Se Plaintiff," 

ECF No. 4, at 1 ~ 2 (dated May 20, 2022) ("You must notify the Court if your address changes, or 

Case 5:22-cv-00091-M-BQ Document 14 Filed 10/28/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 59
your case may be dismissed. Promptly file a written change of address notice in your case."); ECF 

No. 5, at 3 ~ 5 (dated May 24, 2022) ("Plaintiff shall promptly notify the Court of any change of 

address by filing a written notice of change of address with the Clerk. Failure to fi le such notice 

may result in dismissal of the case for want of prosecution."). 

On August 3, 2022, the Court commenced its initial screening of Thompson's Complaint 

by entering an order requiring that certain persons and entities provide authenticated records 

related to Thompson's claims. ECF No. 12. The Clerk mailed the order to Thompson's address 

on file with the Court. See "Clerk's Notice of delivery," dated August 3, 2022. Soon thereafter, 

the Lubbock County Sheriffs Office notified the Court that Thompson was no longer detained at 

the Lubbock County Detention Center (LCDC)-the most recent address on file with the Court. 

ECF No. 13 (reporting that Thompson was released from Lubbock County custody on Sept. 7, 

2022). Online records confirm that Thompson is not held at the LCDC, nor has he been transferred 

to the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). 1 Yet, as of the date of this 

Order (more than seven weeks after leaving LCDC), Thompson has not provided a change of 

address to the Court. In this posture, the Court can only conclude that Thompson no longer wishes 

to pursue his claims. 

II. Involuntary Dismissal 

A court has inherent authority under Rule 4l(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to 

sua sponte dismiss an action for want of prosecution. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 

630- 33 (1962); Clo.fer v. Perego, I 06 F.3d 678, 679 (5th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). This authority 

"flows from the court's inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the 

1 LCDC Inmate Roster, https://publicrecords.lubbockcounty.gov/Jai!Roster/? (last visited Oct. 26, 2022); TDCJ 

Inmate Information Search, https://inmate.tdcj.texas.gov/lnmateSearch/start (last visited Oct. 26, 2022). 

2 

Case 5:22-cv-00091-M-BQ Document 14 Filed 10/28/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 60
disposition of pending cases." Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., 756 F.2d 399,401 (5th Cir. 1985) 

(citing Link, 370 U.S. at 630). 

As noted above, the Court commenced its initial screening of Thompson's Complaint by 

ordering the production of authenticated records. The Court also intended to further develop the 

factual basis of Thompson's claims via an evidentiary hearing (in accordance with Spears v. 

McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181-82 (5th Cir. 1985)) or a questionnaire (pursuant to Watson v. Ault, 

525 F.2d 886, 892-93 (5th Cir. 1976)). Thompson's failure to update his current mailing address, 

however, thwarts the Court's ability to fmiher develop the case. In this circumstance the Court is 

essentially at the mercy of a litigant who refuses to apprise the Court of his whereabouts, thereby 

preventing the Cami from effectively communicating with the party or further evaluating his 

claims. Pro se litigants cannot hold a comi's docket hostage by refusing to comply with orders 

designed to allow a court to timely and efficiently manage its docket. 

Courts have previously dismissed other prisoners' claims for failing to comply with court 

orders requiring a current mailing address. See, e.g. , Williams v. Kemp, No. 3 :2l-cv-00105-N 

(BT), 2021 WL 3024856, at *1 (N.D. Tex. June 4, 2021) (recommending dismissal after mail was 

returned as undeliverable because plaintiff "failed to keep the Court apprised of his current 

address"), R. & R. adopted by 2021 WL 3023009 (N.D. Tex. July 16, 2021); Bennett v. Smith Cnty. 

Jail, No. 6:21cv010, 2021 WL 930282, at* 1 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2021) ("Plaintiffs failure to submit 

an updated mailing address evinces his failure to prosecute his own case."), R. & R. adopted by 

2021 WL 926207 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2021); Martinez-Reyes v. United States, No. 7:14-CV-341, 

2016 WL 8740494, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2016) (concluding dismissal was required "given that 

the last comi document was returned as undeliverable and the Court thus" could not communicate 

with inmate), R. & R. adopted by2017 WL 1409315 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2017); see also Shuemake 

3 

Case 5:22-cv-00091-M-BQ Document 14 Filed 10/28/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 61
v. Hillhouse, No. 6:18cv349, 2021 WL 3044433, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 2, 2021) ("Plaintiff has 

neither communicated with the Court since his release nor provided an updated mailing address as 

required. It is well-settled that a Plaintiff has an ongoing obligation and responsibility to inform 

the Court [ of] his whereabouts through a current mailing address."), R. & R. adopted by 2021 WL 

3032725 (E.D. Tex. July 19, 2021). 

Because Thompson has violated this Court's orders by not updating his mailing address 

and has wholly failed to communicate with the Court in this action since June 30, 2022,2 the United 

States District Judge should dismiss this case for want of prosecution. See Green v. Moore, No. 

1: 15-CV-00210-BL, 2018 WL 3763836, at *2 (N.D. Tex. July 20, 2018) ("Because Plaintiff .. . 

has failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address as required by the local rules ... and 

in direct conflict with the instructions provided to him, it appears that he no longer desires to pursue 

his claims in this cause, such that the remaining claims in this case should be dismiss[ ed] for want 

of prosecution."), R. & R. adopted by 2018 WL 3756894 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2018). 

III. Recommendation 

Because Thompson has violated this Court's orders by not updating his mailing address or 

otherwise communicating with the Court, the undersigned recommends that the United States 

District Judge dismiss this action without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

IV. Right to Object 

A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties 

in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, 

and recommendation must file specific written objections within fourteen days after being served 

2 Under the "prison mailbox rule," courts consider an inmate's pro se pleading filed when it is delivered to prison 

authorities for mailing. Spotvi/le v. Cain, 149 F.3d 374,377 (5th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff's most recent filing does not 

indicate when he provided it to Lubbock County Detention Center officials for mailing, but the envelope is postmarked 

June 30, 2022. ECF No. 9, at 3. The Court therefore considers it filed on that date. 

4 

Case 5:22-cv-00091-M-BQ Document 14 Filed 10/28/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 62
with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) (2016); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). To be specific, an objection 

must identify the specific finding, conclusion, or recommendation to which objection is made, 

state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's Findings, 

Conclusions, 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 Servs. Auto. Ass 'n, 79 F.3d 

1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996). 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October J-3', 2022. !]2f?c 

D. GORDON BRYANT, JW 

UNITED STATES MAGI{ TRATE JUDGE 

5 

Case 5:22-cv-00091-M-BQ Document 14 Filed 10/28/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 63