1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

JAKWAVIANE GOODSON #2319109 §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23cv329

TERRY HUDSON, Jr., et al. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice proceeding pro se, filed this 

section 1983 proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee. Plaintiff’s case was referred to the 

undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 

recommendations for the disposition of the case. 

On August 23, 2023, the undersigned granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 

ordered him to submit an initial, partial filing fee of $3.00 within thirty days of receipt of the order.

(Dkt. #9.) The order expressly warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal. (Id. at 2.)

Plaintiff received that order on September 22, 2023. (Dkt. #14.) He has not paid the initial fee or 

communicated with the Court about any inability to pay the fee or the need for additional time to do 

so. 

A district court may dismiss an action for the failure of a litigant to prosecute or to comply 

with any order of the court. See McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (“The 

court possesses the inherent authority to dismiss the action sua sponte, without motion by a 

defendant.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Here, Plaintiff failed to comply with the order directing him to 

pay the required initial, partial filing fee. 

Dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute or to comply with an order of the Court is an 

extreme sanction that should be employed only when “the plaintiff’s conduct has threatened the 

Case 6:23-cv-00329-JDK-JDL Document 15 Filed 11/06/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

71
2

integrity of the judicial process [in a way that] leav[es] the Court no choice but to deny that plaintiff 

its benefit.” McNeal v. Papasan, 842 F.2d 787, 790 (5th Cir. 1988) (citing Rogers v. Kroger Co., 669 

F.2d 317, 321 (5th Cir. 1982)). A court should consider lesser sanctions, such as fines, costs, damages, 

conditional dismissals, and dismissal without prejudice, among other lesser measures, prior to 

dismissing an action with prejudice. McNeal, 842 F.2d at 793. 

Here, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an order is not an action that threatens the judicial 

process—thereby rendering a dismissal with prejudice unwarranted. Therefore, upon consideration 

of all relevant factors, the Court has determined that the interests of justice are best served by a 

dismissal of this lawsuit without prejudice. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, it is recommended that this case be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to 

comply with an order of the Court. 

Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, any party may serve 

and file written objections to the findings and recommendations contained in the Report.

A party’s failure to file written objections to the findings, conclusions and recommendations 

contained in this Report within fourteen days after being served with a copy shall bar that party from 

de novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations and, except 

on grounds of plain error, from appellate review of unobjected-to factual findings and legal 

conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 

1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 6th day of November, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00329-JDK-JDL Document 15 Filed 11/06/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

72