Washington v. Medical Staff et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BRIAN WASHINGTON 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-1989
MEDICAL STAFF, ET AL. 	SECTION: “D”(3)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
While 	incarcerated 	at 	the 	St. 	Tammany 	Parish 	Jail, 	plaintiff 	Brian
Washington filed this federal civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Washington did not pay the filing fee of submit a pauper application with the
complaint.
On October 30, 2025, an order to show cause sent by the Court to Washington
at the St. Tammany Parish Jail was returned as undeliverable and stamped
“RETURN TO SENDER UNABLE TO FORWARD.”1
Washington provided no alternate private home address in the complaint and
has not notified the Court of a current address. That failure is a direct violation of
this Court’s Local Rules, which expressly provide: “Each attorney and pro se litigant
has a continuing obligation promptly to notify the court of any address or telephone
number change.” Local Rule 11.1. Moreover, it is clear that Washington was in fact
aware of that obligation, in that the deficient complaint included the following
declaration: “I understand that if I am released or transferred, it is my responsibility
1 R. Doc. 4.
Case 2:25-cv-01989-WBV Document 6 Filed 12/08/25 Page 1 of 4

2
to keep the Court informed of my whereabouts and failure to do so may result in this
action being dismissed with prejudice.”2
This Court’s Local Rules provide:
The failure of an attorney or pro se litigant to notify the court of a
current e-mail or postal address may be considered cause for dismissal
for failure to prosecute when a notice is returned to the court because of
an incorrect address and no correction is made to the address for a period
of 35 days from the return.
Local Rule 41.3.1. As already noted, more than thirty-five days ago, mail sent to
Washington at the St. Tammany Parish Jail, was returned by the United States
Postal Service as undeliverable. A recent search of Louisiana’s Vinelink inmate
database reflects that Washington was released from custody on September 25,
2025.3
In the light of the foregoing, it is appropriate to dismiss Washington’s
complaint for want of prosecution. The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss
a plaintiff’s action because of failure to prosecute is clear. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370
U.S. 626 (1962); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126 (5th Cir. 1988). The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically provide that a court may, in its
discretion, dismiss a plaintiff’s action for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any order of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b). 	The Court’s power to dismiss for want of prosecution should be used
sparingly, although it may be exercised sua sponte whenever necessary to achieve
2 R. Doc. 1 at 7.
3 https://vinelink.com/person-detail/offender/50782841;tabIndexToSelect=0.
Case 2:25-cv-01989-WBV Document 6 Filed 12/08/25 Page 2 of 4

3
the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Ramsay v. Bailey, 531 F.2d 706,
707 (5th Cir. 1976).
Here, Washington has not provided the Court with a current address despite
being aware of the obligation to do so. Due solely to that failure, this Court has no
way to advance this case on the docket. This delay is caused by and attributable to
Washington 	personally, 	justifying 	dismissal 	of 	the 	complaint 	for 	failure 	to
prosecute. See Torns v. State of Miss. Dept. of Corrs., 262 F. App’x 638, 639 (5th Cir.
2008); Raborn v. Inpatient Mgt. Partners, Inc., 278 F. App’x 402, 404-05 (5th Cir.
2008). 	Accordingly, the complaint should be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
RECOMMENDATION
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Brian Washington’s complaint be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.
A 	party’s 	failure 	to 	file 	written 	objections 	to 	the 	proposed 	findings,
conclusions, 	and 	recommendation 	in 	a 	magistrate 	judge’s 	report 	and
recommendation within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar
that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the
unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the
district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such
consequences will result from a failure to object. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Douglass
v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Case 2:25-cv-01989-WBV Document 6 Filed 12/08/25 Page 3 of 4

4
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 8 th day of December, 2025.
__________________________________________
EVA J. DOSSIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-01989-WBV Document 6 Filed 12/08/25 Page 4 of 4