Johnson v. Lopinto

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JAKITA JOHNSON CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-2578
JOSEPH P LOPINTO 	SECTION “T”(3)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Jakita Johnson, a state inmate, filed this pro se and in forma pauperis
civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sheriff Joseph Lopinto.
Johnson failed to sign the complaint and did not pay the filing fee or submit a
pauper application with her complaint. On January 5, 2026, the Clerk of Court sent
Johnson a notice of this deficiency which required Johnson to sign the complaint and
either pay the filing fee or submit a properly completed and certified pauper
application within twenty-one (21) days of the date of the notice.1 The necessary
pauper form was provided to Johnson with the Notice of Deficiency.2 The envelope
mailed to Johnson at her prison address of record has not been returned as
undeliverable.
On February 10, 2026, when Johnson did not respond to the deficiency notice,
the Court issued an order for Johnson to show cause by March 3, 2026, why her
complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute by her failure to sign the
complaint and pay the filing fee or submit a certified pauper application.3 The Court
1 R. Doc. 3.
2 R. Doc. 3-2.
3 R. Doc. 4.
Case 2:25-cv-02578-GGG Document 5 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 3

2
warned Johnson that “FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WILL
RESULT IN A RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED.”4
The envelope mailed to Johnson at her prison address of record has not been returned
as undeliverable.
To date, Johnson has not responded to the order, signed the complaint,
submitted a certified pauper application, or paid the filing fee. Johnson’s failure to
comply with the order to show cause clearly reflects a failure on her own part to
prosecute.
In the light of the foregoing, it is appropriate to dismiss Johnson’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 Johnson is proceeding pro se, the Court need consider only her
conduct in determining whether dismissal is proper under Rule 41(b). As noted,
Johnson was twice instructed to sign the complaint and pay the required filing fee
4 Id. at 2.
Case 2:25-cv-02578-GGG Document 5 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 3

3
or submit an application to proceed as pauper. To date, the complaint remains
unsigned, the filing fee remains unpaid, and no pauper application has been
submitted. For these reasons, the Court is unable to advance Johnson’s claims on
the docket. Accordingly, her complaint should be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
RECOMMENDATION
It 	is 	therefore 	RECOMMENDED 	that 	Jakita 	Johnson’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); see Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430
(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 24 th day of March, 2026.
__________________________________________
EVA J. DOSSIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02578-GGG Document 5 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 3