IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CULLEN T. DAVIS, #1210318, )

Petitioner )

)

v. ) 3:04-CV-2501-N

) ECF

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, Texas )

Department of Criminal Justice, )

Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the District Court in

implementation thereof, the subject cause has been referred to the United States Magistrate

Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Type of Case: This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought by a state inmate

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Parties: At the time of filing this action, Petitioner was incarcerated in the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice – Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID). His address or

place of confinement is presently unknown. Respondent is the Director of TDCJ-CID. Process

was issued in this case and Respondent filed an answer. 

Findings and Conclusions: The December 6, 2004 order, permitting proceeding pursuant

to § 2254 and granting the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, specifically requires a petitioner

to inform the court of any change of address and its effective date. (See Docket #4). While

Petitioner notified the court of his initial transfer to the Holliday Unit of TDCJ-CID, he has

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02501-N Document 9 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 37
2

failed to keep the court informed of any subsequent transfers or his release from custody. The

court is not required to delay disposition in this case until such time as Petitioner provides his

current address.

Rule 41(b), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 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. 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 (1962)). 

RECOMMENDATION:

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the habeas corpus petition be dismissed

without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. 

Signed December 13, 2005.

_____________________________________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

In the event that you wish to object to this recommendation, you are hereby notified that

you must file your written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of this

recommendation. Pursuant to Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir.

1996) (en banc), a party's failure to file written objections to these proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law within such ten-day period may bar a de novo determination by the district

judge of any finding of fact or conclusion of law and shall bar such party, except upon grounds

of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected to proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law accepted by the district court.

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02501-N Document 9 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 38