Washington v. Mailroom Staff et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BRIAN WASHINGTON CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 25-1990
MAILROOM STAFF, ET AL. SECTION “E” (2)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Brian Washington, submitted for filing this pro se civil rights complaint pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the conditions of her confinement. ECF No. 1 (Deficient
Complaint). At the time of filing, Washington did not pay the filing fee or submit with the
complaint a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
On September 26, 2025, the Clerk of Court sent a deficiency notice addressed to plaintiff
instructing her that she was required to either pay the filing fee or provide a separate pauper
application. ECF No. 2. The Clerk of Court enclosed a pauper application for Washington’s use.
The envelope containing the notice was returned on October 30, 2025, marked “RETURN TO
SENDER NO LONGER HERE.” ECF No. 4 at 2. When Washington failed to respond to the
deficiency notice, I issued an order on October 27, 2025, for Washington to show cause on or
before November 26, 2025, why her § 1983 complaint should not be dismissed for failure to
prosecute. ECF No. 3. The envelope containing the order was returned on November 19, 2025,
marked “RETURN TO SENDER UNABLE TO FORWARD.” ECF No. 5 at 1. Washington has
not provided the Court with a change of address form that provided at the time of the filing of this
lawsuit. Washington did not respond to the order, pay the filing fee, or submit a pauper application.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court may in its
discretion dismiss any action based on the failure of a plaintiff to prosecute or comply with any
Case 2:25-cv-01990-SM Document 6 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 4

2
order of the court.1 In applying the sanction of dismissal, courts have traditionally considered the
extent to which the plaintiff, rather than her counsel, is responsible for the delay or failure to
comply with the court’s order.2 Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, it is apparent that this court
must weigh her actions alone in considering dismissal of this action under Rule 41(b). A pro se
litigant is not exempt from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.3 A
pro se litigant who fails to comply with procedural rules has the burden of establishing excusable
neglect, which is a strict standard requiring proof of more than mere ignorance.4
All litigants are obligated to keep the court advised of any address change.5 In addition, the
complaint form used by Washington to institute this action contains the following declaration: “I
understand that if I am released or transferred, it is my responsibility to keep the Court informed
of my whereabouts and failure to do so may result in this action being dismissed with prejudice.”6
“[T]he failure of a pro se litigant to notify the district court of an address change may be considered
by the district court as an additional cause for dismissal for failure to prosecute.”7
Washington has not contacted the Court or provided a current address within 36 days of
the return of the first undeliverable envelope.8 Washington has failed to comply with the court’s
rules and orders, which has created delay in the court’s ability to efficiently manage the case. Her
1 Hulsey v. St. of Tex., 929 F.2d 168, 171 (5th Cir. 1991); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir.
1988); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Dep. Sher. Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 749 (5th Cir. 1987).
2 Markwell v. Cnty. of Bexar, 878 F.2d 899, 902 (5th Cir. 1989); Price v. McGlathery, 792 F.2d 472, 474-75 (5th Cir.
1986).
3 Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1981); Edwards v. Harris Cnty. Sher.’s Office, 864 F. Supp. 633, 637
(S.D. Tex. 1994).
4 Kersh v. Derozier, 851 F.2d 1509, 1512 (5th Cir. 1988); Birl, 660 F.2d at 593.
5 See EDLA Local Rules 11.1 and 41.3.1.
6 ECF No. 1, ¶VI(2), at 8 (Plaintiff’s Declaration).
7 Lewis v. Hardy, 248 F. App’x 589, 2007 WL 2809969, at *4 n.1 (5th Cir. 2007).
8 See, L.R. 41.3.1 (“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.”)
Case 2:25-cv-01990-SM Document 6 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 4

3
delay is caused by and attributable to Washington herself, justifying dismissal of her claims within
the complaint for failure to prosecute.9
In a final effort to provide Washington with an opportunity to show cause why her claims
should not be dismissed, I issue these Findings and Recommendation to the presiding United States
District Judge. Washington is advised that she may object to these Findings and Recommendation
within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this report. It is suggested to Washington
that any objection should contain a short summary of the reasons why she failed to comply with
the court’s previous orders. Washington is further advised that any objection should be in writing
and filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 500
Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130, on a written document containing the caption of
this lawsuit.
Washington is further advised that failure to file written objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Findings and Recommendation may, and probably will, result in dismissal of plaintiff’s
lawsuit. 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.10
9 See Torns v. St. of Miss. Dep’t 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).
10 Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F. 3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).
Douglass referred to the previously applicable ten-day period for filing of objections, which was extended to fourteen
days by amendment effective December 1, 2009, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Case 2:25-cv-01990-SM Document 6 Filed 12/05/25 Page 3 of 4

4
RECOMMENDATION
It is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff Brian Washington’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.
41(b).
Dated this 5th day of December, 2025.
_____________________________________
DONNA PHILLIPS CURRAULT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-01990-SM Document 6 Filed 12/05/25 Page 4 of 4