Corpus: 543,223 opinions · 3,177 judges · newest 2026-06-23 · expanding Coverage ↗
Opinion

govinfo:USCOURTS-txed-4_25-cv-01214-0

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas · 2026-06-08

· GavelSight synced 2026-09-06 03:42:02

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
SHERMAN DIVISION 
 
PATRICK SMITH, #02510715 
 
v. 
 
KALEB ATKINS 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
NO. 4:25-CV-01214-BD 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
Proceeding pro se, Patrick Smith filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action 
was assigned to me, Dkt. 3, and Smith consented to my conducting all proceedings, Dkt. 4. 
On April 14, 2026, the court ordered Smith , within 30 days of receipt of the order, to pay an 
initial partial filing fee of $6.37. Dkt. 5. That order was returned to the court with a notation from 
prison officials at TDCJ’s Choice Moore Unit indicating that Smith had been transferred to 
TDCJ’s Michael Unit. Dkt. 6. On April 22, 2026, the clerk of court sent Smith a copy of the order, 
Dkt. 5, at the Michael Unit address. Dkt. 6. He failed to comply with that order and, as such, has 
failed to prosecute his case. 
T h e e x e r c i s e o f t h e p o w e r t o d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e t o p r o s e c u t e i s c o m m i t t e d t o t h e s o u n d 
discretion of the court; appellate review is only for abuse of that discretion. Green v. Forney Eng’g 
Co., 589 F.2d 243, 247 (5th Cir. 1979); Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. ISD, 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 
1978). Not only may a district court dismiss for want of prosecution upon motion of a defendant, 
but it may also dismiss an action sua sponte when necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious 
disposition of a case. Link v. Wabash R. R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629– 31 (1962); Anthony v. Marion 
Cnty. Gen. Hosp. , 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980). A district court may dismiss an action for 
failure of a litigant to pros ecute or to comply with any order of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 
835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In this case, Smith has failed to comply 
with the court’s order. Therefore, the case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 
It is ORDERED that the case is dismissed without prejudice. PageID #: 
<pageID>
2 PageID #: 
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight