IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

ANTHONY PRESCOTT §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:24cv058

TIARA HICKS, et al. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a former inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis, brought this civil action complaining of alleged violations of his rights in 

prison pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was transferred to this Court for proper venue and

referred to the undersigned for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the 

disposition of the case.

On February 26, 2024, the Court gave Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint to 

cure deficiencies identified in the original pleading. (Dkt. #5.) The Order expressly cautioned that 

failure to comply could result in dismissal. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff objected to that Order, and the Court 

overruled his objection on April 8, 2024. (Dkt. #10.) On May 1, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff 

an extension of twenty-one days from entry of the Order to amend his complaint and reminded 

him that failure to comply could result in dismissal. (Dkt. #12.)

Plaintiff received that Order sometime before May 10, 2024, in plenty of time to comply.

(Dkt. #13.) But he waited until May 30, 2024, more than a week after the expiration of his deadline, 

to mail yet another motion for extension of time. (Dkt. #14.) Plaintiff does not acknowledge his 

lateness or address the criteria for seeking an extension out of time. Specifically, after the time to 

act has expired, the Court should only extend the time for good cause and “if the party failed to act 

because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B).

Case 6:24-cv-00058-JDK-KNM Document 15 Filed 06/05/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

49
2

Plaintiff asserts that “[i]t was only recently that [he] was able to engage with an attorney”

about his case and that the attorney is still gathering information. (Dkt. #14 at 2.) He pledges that 

either he or the unnamed attorney will appear with an amended complaint or other notice by July 

1, 2024. (Id. at 3.) But he offers no reason for why he has waited until now to seek an attorney’s 

assistance after he filed suit in February and was first ordered to amend his complaint on February 

26, 2024.

Plaintiff does assert that his efforts have been slowed by “a long standing campaign”

targeting him, which includes unnamed assailants breaking into his home and poisoning him by 

putting chemical detergents in his beverages, and that such attacks happen more frequently around 

his court filings. (Id. at 2.) The Court cannot credit such factually implausible claims. And Plaintiff 

offers no other basis to justify his lateness.

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

with any order of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also 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.”). Dismissal with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order 

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

the 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 the Court’s orders 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 case without prejudice.

Case 6:24-cv-00058-JDK-KNM Document 15 Filed 06/05/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

50
3

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s untimely motion for extension 

(Dkt. #14) be denied and this action be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply 

with an order of the Court and failure to take the steps necessary to prosecute this case.

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 5th day of June, 2024.

Case 6:24-cv-00058-JDK-KNM Document 15 Filed 06/05/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

51