IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DAVID STARKS, #1198784, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 3:04-CV-2561-K

)

JEFFEREY BLANCH, et al., )

Defendants. )

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, as evidenced by

his signature thereto, are as follows:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Type of Case: This is an action brought by an inmate pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Parties: Plaintiff’s whereabouts are presently unknown. At the time of filing this action

he was incarcerated at the Dallas County Jail. (See Complaint at 4). On February 10, 2005, he

notified the court that he had been transferred to the Baten ISF Unit of the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice – Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID) in Pampa, Texas. On May

24, 2005, the court re-mailed its February 9, 2005 letter inquiring about Defendant Jefferey

Blanch’s address for service of process to the Baten ISF’s address. On June 1, 2005, this mailing

was returned to the court as marked with the notation “inactive.” (See Docket entry # 15).

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02561-K Document 16 Filed 06/09/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 51
1 In his original complaint, Plaintiff named the Dallas Police Department as a

defendant. However, in answer to Question 3 of the magistrate judge’s questionnaire, Plaintiff

named the City of Dallas in lieu of the Dallas Police Department. (See Answer to Questionnaire

filed on January 28, 2005).

2 He also requests that his misdemeanor offenses of criminal mischief be declared

void and unconstitutional which are not cognizable claims in a civil rights action.

2

Defendants are Police Officer Jefferey Blanch, the City of Dallas, and the State of

Texas.1

Statement of Case: Plaintiff complains of two mace/pepper spray incidents which he

alleges amounted to excessive use of force in violation of his constitutional rights. The first

incident occurred during his arrest, whereas the second incident took place shortly after his

arrival at the Detoxication Center on Chestnut Street. He requests monetary relief.2

Findings and Conclusions: The filing fee order, filed on January 20, 2005, specifically

requires a litigant to inform the court of any change of address and its effective date. (Filing Fee

Order ¶ 8). Although Plaintiff notified the court of his initial transfer to Baten ISF, he has failed

to keep the court informed of any subsequent transfers or his current address in the event that he

has been released from custody. His failure to follow this simple requirement may suggest that

he no longer wishes to pursue his claims. However, regardless of the reasons for his failure to

comply, the court is not required to delay disposition in this case until such time as Plaintiff

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

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02561-K Document 16 Filed 06/09/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 52
3

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 complaint be dismissed without

prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

A copy of this recommendation will be mailed to Plaintiff David Stark’s last known

address at the Baten ISF, 1995 Hilton Road, Pampa, Texas 79065.

Signed this 9th day of June, 2005.

____________________________________

WM. F. SANDERSON, JR.

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-02561-K Document 16 Filed 06/09/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 53