Reported / Citable
Background
Richard McKinney filed this civil action while confined at the Harris County Jail. The court granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but the order was returned in June because McKinney had been released and the mail could not be forwarded.
McKinney did not provide the court with a current address. Southern District of Texas Local Rule 83.4 requires pro se litigants to keep the clerk informed in writing of their current address, and the court sends notices only to the address on file.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Andrew S. Hanen dismissed the action without prejudice for want of prosecution. The court concluded that McKinney’s failure to update his address and pursue the case demonstrated a lack of due diligence.
The court relied on its inherent authority to manage its docket, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), and Fifth Circuit authority permitting sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order. It denied any pending motions as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A pro se litigant must keep the court informed of a current mailing address under the applicable local rules.
- Failure to update an address after release from custody can support dismissal for want of prosecution.
- The dismissal was without prejudice, and McKinney may seek Rule 60(b) relief within 30 days by making a proper showing and supplying a valid address.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates that even a nonmerits dismissal may follow when a litigant becomes unreachable and does not comply with address-update requirements. Courts may invoke their inherent docket-management authority and Rule 41(b) without waiting for an opposing party to request dismissal.