United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
C. WILKINSON, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Chad Michael Billiot, was a prisoner incarcerated in the
Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex in Houma,
Louisiana, at the time he filed the captioned suit pro se and
in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(“Section 1983”). Billiot alleges that he
received inadequate and/or delayed medical care from prison
officials after slipping on a wet floor that was not properly
marked with caution signs. Record Doc. No. 1 at p. 6, ¶
IV. He further states that his legal mail to his appointed
criminal counsel is not properly being sent out by prison
officials. Id. at p. 7, ¶ IV. Finally,
plaintiff alleges unsanitary conditions of confinement in the
prison, including “filth [and] mold throughout the
entire dormitory, ” which subjected plaintiff to nausea
and vomiting. Id. He states that his requests and
grievances concerning his medical care, legal mail and
unsanitary prison conditions have been ignored by prison
officials. Id. at pp. 6-7, ¶ IV. Plaintiff
seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. Id. at
p. 6, ¶ V.
order dated October 28, 2019, Record Doc. No. 12, plaintiff
was ordered to file with the court on or before December 2,
2019: (1) a written list of the full names of all persons
whom plaintiff contends violated his constitutional rights
under the facts alleged in this lawsuit; (2) a written
statement advising the court whether plaintiff is presently
incarcerated based on a conviction and, if so, the date of
conviction; (3) a written statement of the facts expected to
be offered at trial, either orally or as documents; (4) a
complete and specific list of all documents to be offered at
trial; and (5) a complete list of all witnesses to be called
at trial, including the name and address of each witness and
a separate summary of the expected testimony of each witness.
The record indicates that this order was mailed to plaintiff
at the prison address listed on his complaint. This mail has
been returned to the court as undeliverable. Record Doc. No.
15. No response from plaintiff has been received.
response to my order to prison officials requiring that they
provide a certified statement of plaintiff's prison trust
account, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), Record
Doc. No. 6, an authorized jail official certified:
“Inmate Chad Michael Billiot was in Terrebonne Parish
Criminal Justice Complex for 3 months. Inmate was released on
October 7, 2019.” Record Doc. No. 9 at p. 1. No
forwarding address was available.
litigants are obligated to keep the court advised of any
address change. Local Rules 11.1 and 41.3.1. In addition, the
form Section 1983 complaint used by plaintiff specifically
provided: “I understand that if I am released or
transferred, it is my responsibility to keep the Court
informed of my whereabouts and failure to do so may result in
this action being dismissed with prejudice.” Record
Doc. No. 1 at p. 8, ¶ VI (2). Plaintiff has not
provided the court with current contact information of any
41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a
court may in its discretion dismiss any action based on the
failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or comply with any
order of the court. Hulsey v. Texas, 929 F.2d 168,
171 (5th Cir. 1991); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d
1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty.
Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 749 (5th Cir. 1987).
In applying the sanction of dismissal, courts traditionally
have considered the extent to which the plaintiff, rather
than his counsel, is responsible for the delay or failure to
comply with the court's order. Markwell v. Cnty. of
Bexar, 878 F.2d 899, 902 (5th Cir. 1989); Price v.
McGlathery, 792 F.2d 472, 474-75 (5th Cir. 1986).
Because the plaintiff in this case is in proper person, it is
apparent that this court must weigh his actions alone in
considering dismissal of this action under Rule 41(b). A pro
se litigant is not exempt from compliance with relevant rules
of procedural and substantive law. Birl v. Estelle,
660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1981); Edwards v. Harris
Cnty. Sheriff's Ofc., 864 F.Supp. 633, 637 (S.D.
Tex. 1994). A pro se litigant who fails to comply with
procedural rules has the burden of establishing excusable
neglect, which is a strict standard requiring proof of more
than mere ignorance. Kersh v. Derozier, 851 F.2d
1509, 1512 (5th Cir. 1988); Birl, 660 F.2d at 593.
court has attempted through its order, Local Rules and
address change statement on the Section 1983 complaint form
to have plaintiff provide it with the information necessary
to prosecute plaintiff's case. Plaintiff's failure to
comply clearly reflects a failure on the part of plaintiff to
prosecute his case.
effort to afford plaintiff one final opportunity to respond,
I have issued these findings and recommendation to the
presiding United States District Judge and have sent a copy
to the Warden of the Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice
Complex with an order to forward these findings and
recommendation to plaintiff's last known address.
Plaintiff is advised that he may object to the Magistrate
Judge's proposed findings and recommendation within
fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this report.
The plaintiff is advised that any objection should be in
writing and filed with the Clerk of the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 500 Poydras
Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130, on a written document
containing the caption of this lawsuit. It is suggested to
the plaintiff that his objection should contain a short
summary of the reasons that he failed to comply with the
court's previous order. It is further suggested that the
plaintiff should also provide the court with the information
requested in the court's previous order as detailed
is advised that failure to file written objections to the
Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation may and
probably will result in dismissal of his suit.
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.
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (citing 28 U.S.C. §
IS RECOMMENDED that, if plaintiff does not file
written objections to these findings and recommendation, the
claims of Chad Michael Billiot be ...