IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LAKEITH AMIR-SHARIF, #05081644, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 3:06-CV-0408-M

)

SHERIFF LUPE VALDEZ, 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, this case 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 pro se prisoner civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Following initial screening, the court dismissed this case in part and issued process in

part. 

Parties: At the time of filing this action Plaintiff Lakeith Amir-Sharif (Amir-Sharif) was

a pre-trial detainee at the Dallas County Jail. Thereafter, he was released on pre-trial bond and

requested the court to mail all court orders and correspondence relating to this case to a personal

post office box in Dallas. The Defendants remaining in this case are Sheriff Lupe Valdez,

Captain Ledford, Dallas County, Chief Deputy Edgar L. McMillian, Jr., and Officers Quintina

Hayden and Jay Abell. 

Findings and Conclusions: Plaintiff has a long and frivolous filing history in this court. 

During the last two and one-half years, he filed seventeen district court actions, and eighteen
2

appeals. The majority of his actions and appeals were dismissed as frivolous and for want of

prosecution. 

As a result of Amir-Sharif’s continued abuse of the legal process and frivolous filings,

the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit imposed a $455.00 sanction on March

14, 2008, and “barred him from filing any pleading in this court or in any court subject to this

court’s jurisdiction until the total amount of the sanction imposed on him is paid in full.” AmirSharif v. Sheriff Deputy Gonzalez, et al., No. 3:06cv2269 (N.D. Tex., Dallas Div.), Appeal No.

07-10635, slip op. at 2 (5th Cir. 2008) (unpublished per curiam). 

On March 21, 2008, the District Court stayed all proceedings in this case until AmirSharif paid the above Fifth Circuit sanction. Since then Plaintiff has wholly failed to contact this

court in any way about his case, or pay any portion of the monetary sanction. As a result, on

July 1, 2008, the undersigned issued an order to Plaintiff directing him to show cause why this

case should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for his

failure to pay the $455.00 sanction imposed by the Fifth Circuit in No. 07-10635. As of the date

of this recommendation, Plaintiff has not responded to the show cause order or requested an

extension of time to do so.

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); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d

1126, 1127(5th Cir. 1988). “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
1 When a plaintiff's action would be barred by the statute of limitations, a dismissal

under Rule 41(b) is tantamount to a dismissal with prejudice. Berry, 975 F.2d at 1191.

3

R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)). 

If the statute of limitations bars re-prosecution of a suit dismissed under Rule 41(b)

without prejudice, such as in the case at hand, the scope of the district court’s discretion is

narrower. Where limitations “prevents or arguably may prevent” further litigation, the district

court may dismiss for want of prosecution only when there is a clear record of delay or

contumacious conduct by the plaintiff, and the district court has expressly determined that lesser

sanctions would not prompt diligent prosecution, or the record shows that the district court

employed lesser sanctions that proved to be futile. Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188,

1191 (5th Cir. 1992).1

 

Amir-Sharif has a clear record of delay and contumacious conduct. This case has been

pending for over two and one-half years. He has not responded to the court’s July 1, 2008 order

in a timely manner. Nor has he notified the court of any address change since his release on

bond on or about February 21, 2007. 

Over the last two years, in this as well as in his many other cases, the court gave AmirSharif ample notice that he must keep the court appraised at all times of his change of address,

and that his failure to do so would result in the dismissal of his case for want of prosecution. 

The civil rights complaint form specifically notified him of the notice of address requirement and

warned him of the consequences if he failed to comply. See Complaint filed March 6, 2006 at p.

2 (Doc. #1). The court reiterated the above notice and warning in the filing fee order filed on

March 11, 2006. See Ord at ¶ 8 (Doc. #3). 
2 Amir-Sharif made three installment payments in 2006 and one in 2007. The latter

was on January 9, 2007, before he was released on pre-trial bond. 

4

Plaintiff’s failure to provide notice of his current address or to comply with the July 1,

2008 order, evinces a clear disregard for the proceedings in this case. The court is not required

to delay disposition in this case until such time as Plaintiff decides to provide notice of his

current address. Moreover, in the more than one-year period since he was released from the

Dallas County Jail on pre-trial bond, see February 21, 2007 Notice of Change of Address, AmirSharif has made no installment payment toward the $250.00 filing fee in this case under the

Prison Litigation Reform Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), and the court’s filing fee order filed on

March 10, 2006. A balance of $202.30 remains.2

 

Amir-Sharif has paid nothing toward the Fifth Circuit $455.00 sanction in No. 07-10635,

supra, or the additional $100.00 sanction which the Fifth Circuit imposed on him for repeatedly

filing frivolous actions, see Amir-Sharif v. Dallas County Texas, et al., No. 07-10582 (5th Cir.

Mar. 13, 2008) (unpublished per curiam). 

In light of Amir-Sharif’s above described conduct and omissions, a lesser sanction than

dismissal would not prompt diligent prosecution. In this case, as well as in his many other cases

before the district and appellate courts, Plaintiff has displayed a pattern of filing frivolous cases

and repeatedly failing to obey court rules and procedures. Accordingly, the District Court should

exercise its discretion to dismiss this case under Rule 41(b) notwithstanding the fact that further

litigation of Plaintiff’s claims would be barred by limitations. 
5

RECOMMENDATION:

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the complaint be DISMISSED for want

of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

A copy of this recommendation will be transmitted to counsel for Defendants and to

Plaintiff at the address shown on the clerk’s docket sheet.

Signed this 29th day of July, 2008.

_____________________________________

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.