Spell v. Thaler

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION DUSTIN COLE SPELL § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-278 DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID § REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Petitioner Dustin Cole Spell, a prisoner confined at the Roach Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . The petition was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. Discussion On March 25, 2013, this petition was stayed and administratively closed to allow Petitioner to exhaust his habeas claims in state court. Petitioner was advised that the petition would be reopened when he notified the court that he had received a ruling from the state court. Petitioner has not notified the court that the state court proceedings have concluded or otherwise contacted the court since the petition was administratively closed. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. Griggs v. S.G.E. Mgmt., 905 F.3d 835, 844 (5th Cir. 2018); Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “The power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997). Because he has failed to keep the court updated on the status of his state court proceedings, Petitioner has not prosecuted this case diligently. Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Recommendation This petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Objections Within fourteen days after receipt of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72. SIGNED this 11th day of September, 2025. Ef. a Zack Hawthorn United States Magistrate Judge