Leach v. Turlich et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CLEMENT ISADORE LEACH, JR., #173368 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-2123
GERALD TURLICH, ET AL. 	SECTION AL@(5)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In October 2025, while incarcerated at the Plaquemines Parish Detention Center, pro
se plaintiff, Clement Isadore Leach, Jr., submitted a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. 	In the lawsuit, he claims that Sheriff Gerald Turlich and Warden Denise Narcisse,
individually and in their official capacities, violated his constitutional rights by engaging with
“outside law enforcement to conduct monitoring, surveillance, investigation and illegally
using the inmate population within the housing unit dorm to assist them.”1 	He also alleges
that officials interfered with his legal mail, ignored grievances, engaged in police entrapment,
and 	denied 	him 	appropriate 	Muslim 	religious 	services. 	He 	requests 	monetary
compensation, declaratory and injunctive relief.
The complaint was treated as deficient because he failed 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 Leach at his address of record, Plaquemines Parish Detention Center.2 	On
1 R. Doc. 1, Complaint, p. 2.
2 R. Doc. 3, Notice of Deficient Filing, 10/16/2025.
Case 2:25-cv-02123-EEF Document 5 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 4

2
November 14, 2025, the envelope containing the notice of deficiency was returned to the
Court with a notation “return to sender” and “not deliverable as addressed and unable to
forward.”3 	Leach has made no attempt to contact the court to correct the stated deficiency
or update his 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.
Additionally, all litigants are obligated to keep the Court advised of any address
3 R. Doc. 4.
Case 2:25-cv-02123-EEF Document 5 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 4

3
change. 	See EDLA Local Rules 11.1 and 41.3.1.4 	“[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 Leach at
the Plaquemines Parish Detention Center, his address of record, was returned by the United
States Postal Service as undeliverable. 	Leach has not complied with his legal obligation to
update his contact information and provide a current address for the Court to be able to
advance his 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
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)).5
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
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 Douglass referenced the previously applicable ten-day period for the filing of objections.
Case 2:25-cv-02123-EEF Document 5 Filed 01/07/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Accordingly, for the reasons expressed, it is RECOMMENDED that Clement Isadore
Leach, Jr.’s complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ 	day of January, 2026.
____
MICHAEL B. NORTH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Effective December 1, 2009, 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1) was amended to extend the period to fourteen days.
7th
Case 2:25-cv-02123-EEF Document 5 Filed 01/07/26 Page 4 of 4