Washington v. Lungford et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BRIAN WASHINGTON CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 25-2075
WARDEN LUGFORD, ET AL. SECTION: “H”(1)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
While incarcerated at the St. Tammany Parish Jail, plaintiff Brian Washington1 filed this
federal civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2
On November 4, 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
UNDELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD.”3 A handwritten notation on
the envelope states “RTS no longer here.”4
Washington provided no alternate private home address in the complaint, and she has not
notified the Court of her 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 her deficient
complaint included 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.”5
1 Washington identifies as a transgender female.
2 Washington failed to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
3 R. Doc. 3.
4 Id. at 2.
5 R. Doc. 1 at 5.
Case 2:25-cv-02075-JTM Document 4 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 3

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, 2025.6
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 the orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases. Ramsay v. Bailey, 531 F.2d 706, 707 (5th Cir. 1976).
Because Washington is proceeding pro se, the Court need consider only her conduct in
determining whether dismissal is proper under Rule 41(b). Here, Washington has not provided
the Court with her current address despite being aware of her obligation to do so. Due solely to
her failure, this Court has no way to advance this case on the docket. This delay is caused by
and attributable to Washington herself, justifying dismissal of her complaint for failure to
6 https://vinelink.com/person-detail/offender/50782841;tabIndexToSelect=0.
Case 2:25-cv-02075-JTM Document 4 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 3

3
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, her complaint should be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
RECOMMENDATION
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that 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).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ___ day of December, 2025.
__________________________________________
JANIS VAN MEERVELD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02075-JTM Document 4 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 3