United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is a Complaint and Amended Complaint (Docs. 1, 20)
filed by pro se Plaintiff Lawrence Davis (#21218-016) under
Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of
Narcotics. At the time of filing, Davis was a
District of Columbia inmate in the custody of the United
States Bureau of Prisons (âBOPâ). Davis's Complaint was
initially filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Hampshire, but was later transferred to this
Court. (Doc. 6). Because Davis failed to provide documents on
approved forms, and his mail was returned to the Clerk of
Court as undeliverable, the Complaint was stricken. (Doc.
15). Davis filed a letter requesting that his case be
reopened, and the Court granted that request. (Docs. 18, 19).
Davis has failed to comply with the Court's Order to
amend (Doc. 21), the Complaints (Docs. 1, 20) should be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
was allegedly attacked by several inmates at the United
States Penitentiary in Pollock, Louisiana. Davis suffered
serious injuries, which required hospitalization and surgical
intervention. (Doc. 1, pp. 4-5).
alleges that Defendant Officers Qualls and Johnson were
present during the assault and failed to intervene. (Doc. 1,
p. 6). Davis also alleges Officers Qualls and Johnson
directed the inmates to assault him. (Doc. 1, p. 5). In
addition to severe physical injuries, Davis claims he
suffered mental and emotional injuries as a result of the
attack. (Doc. 1).
further asserts that St. Francis Cabrini Hospital, Dr. Smith,
Dr. Lenhan, and Dr. Dozier, were negligent during surgery in
attempting to repair Davis's medial right orbital wall.
(Doc. 1, p. 5).
Amended Complaint, Davis claims that Officer Jackson failed
to properly conduct security checks, which led to the attack.
(Doc. 20, p. 3).
it appears that his claims are untimely and Davis made
inconsistent allegations regarding the exhaustion of his
administrative remedies in his Complaints (Docs. 1, 20),
Davis was ordered to amend to provide additional information.
(Doc. 21). The Amended Complaint was due by April 18, 2019.
(Doc. 24). To date, Davis has failed to comply with the
Law and Analysis
district court may dismiss an action for a petitioner's
failure to prosecute or to comply with any order.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). A court possesses the inherent authority
to dismiss an action sua sponte, without a motion by a
defendant. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S.
626, 630-31 (1962). “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 [d]istrict [c]ourts.” Id. at
was granted an extension of time to April 18, 2019 within
which to comply with the Court's Order. (Doc. 24). More
than one month has passed since the extended deadline, and
Davis has failed to comply or explain. Therefore, Davis's
Complaints (Docs. 1, 20) should be DISMISSED WITHOUT