Washington v. Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson, LLP et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BRIAN WASHINGTON, #238164 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-2124
PORTEOUS, HAINKEL & JOHNSON, ET AL. 	SECTION AO@(5)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In October 2025, while incarcerated at the St. Tammany Parish Jail, pro se plaintiff,
Brian Washington, submitted a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 	In the
lawsuit, she claims that she was framed for automotive insurance fraud by different law
firms and false information was disseminated. 	She requests $100,000,000 in monetary
compensation.
The complaint was treated as deficient for failure to pay the filing fee or file an
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 	The Clerk promptly issued a notice of
deficiency to Washington at her address of record, St. Tammany Parish Jail.2 	On November
10, 2025, the envelope containing the notice of deficiency was returned to the Court with a
1 ECF No. 1, Complaint. 	Washington has filed numerous civil proceedings in this Court.
The Court is aware that Washington identifies as a transgender female. 	Additionally, the Court
notes that Washington has now acquired three strikes under the PLRA based on her history of filing
frivolous and malicious lawsuits while incarcerated. 	See Washington v. St. Tammany Parish Jail, Civ.
Action No. 25-1835, 2025 WL 3086555 (E.D. La. Sept. 29, 2025), adopted, 2025 WL 3080072 (E.D. La.
Nov. 4, 2024).
2 ECF No. 2, Notice of Deficient Filing, 10/15/2025.
Case 2:25-cv-02124-BSL Document 4 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 4

2
notation “refused” and “undeliverable as addressed and unable to forward.”3 	Washington
has made no attempt to correct the stated deficiency or update her address.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule provides for dismissal of an
action based on the failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or comply with any order of the court.
See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962) (noting courts have inherent authority
“to clear their calendars of cases that have remained dormant because of the inaction or
dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief”); Hulsey v. State of Texas, 929 F.2d 168, 171 (5th
Cir. 1991); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988); Brinkmann v. Dallas
County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 749 (5th Cir. 1987). 	A pro se litigant is not
exempt from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law. 	Birl v.
Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1981); Edwards v. Harris County Sheriff's Dept., 864 F.
Supp. 633, 637 (S.D. Tex. 1994). 	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. 	Kersh v. Derozier, 851 F.2d 1509, 1512 (5th Cir. 1988); Birl,
660 F.2d at 593.
Furthermore, all litigants are obligated to keep the Court advised of any address
change. 	See EDLA Local Rules 11.1 and 41.3.1. 4 	The complaint form signed by
3 ECF No. 3.
4 Rule 11 provides that “[e]ach attorney and pro se litigant has a continuing obligation
promptly to notify the court of any address or telephone number change.” 	Rule 41.3.1 provides
that “[t]he 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
Case 2:25-cv-02124-BSL Document 4 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 4

3
Washington and used to initiate 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.”
ECF No. 1 at p. 6 (¶ VI, Declaration No. 2). 	“[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.” 	Lewis v. Hardy, 248 F. App'x 589, 2007 WL
2809969, at *4 n. 1 (5th Cir. 2007). 	More than 35 days ago, mail sent to Washington at the
St. Tammany Parish Jail, her address of record, was returned by the United States Postal
Service as undeliverable. 	Furthermore, based on the Court’s independent research, it
appears that Washington was released from custody on September 25, 2025. 5 	Yet,
Washington has not complied with her legal obligation to update her contact information
and provide a current address for the Court to be able to advance her civil case on the docket.
Accordingly, the complaint should be dismissed 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
the court because of an incorrect address and no correction is made to the address for a period of 35
days from the return.”
5 A 	member 	of 	the 	undersigned’s 	staff 	conducted 	a 	search 	through 	VINElink 	at
https://doc.louisiana.gov/imprisoned-person-programs-resources/offender-information/
Case 2:25-cv-02124-BSL Document 4 Filed 12/16/25 Page 3 of 4

4
accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such
consequences will result from a failure to object. 	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)).6
Accordingly, 	for 	the 	reasons 	expressed, 	it 	is 	RECOMMENDED 	that 	Brian
Washington’s complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ 	day of December, 2025.
____
MICHAEL B. NORTH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6 Douglass referenced the previously applicable ten-day period for the filing of objections.
Effective December 1, 2009, 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1) was amended to extend the period to fourteen days.
16th
Case 2:25-cv-02124-BSL Document 4 Filed 12/16/25 Page 4 of 4