Daniel v. Hoya Optical, 3:19-cv-01740

Plaintiff David Daniel, Sr., proceeding pro se, sued his former employer Hoya Optical alleging retaliatory termination.
The Court granted in forma pauperis status and issued a verified screening questionnaire to clarify facts, timeliness, and venue, with a response due August 22, 2019.
Daniel failed to file the verified questionnaire response or otherwise communicate with the Court; more than a month passed after the deadline.
The magistrate judge concluded Daniel’s noncompliance prevented the case from proceeding and constituted failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order.
The magistrate recommended dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) without prejudice, but noted that Daniel’s attached EEOC right-to-sue letter (dated April 23, 2019) likely makes refiling untimely and thus the dismissal may effectively operate as one with prejudice.
The magistrate conditioned the dismissal on permitting Daniel to move to reopen the case within 30 days of any order adopting the recommendation and warned about the 14-day objection period to the recommendation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal under Rule 41(b) is warranted for failure to prosecute/obey a court order	Daniel alleged a retaliation claim but did not respond to the court’s questionnaire (no compliance argument made)	Hoya implicitly relies on the Court’s authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution	Court: Dismissal under Rule 41(b) is warranted for failure to prosecute and to obey the court order
Whether pro se status excuses compliance with court orders	Pro se litigant often requests liberal treatment	Defendant argues standard rules apply; Court must manage docket	Court: Pro se status does not excuse compliance with procedural orders
Whether dismissal should be without prejudice or with prejudice given EEOC timing	Daniel would prefer dismissal without prejudice to preserve ability to refile	Hoya could assert the case is untimely if refiling is attempted	Court: Dismissal recommended without prejudice, but notes the EEOC right-to-sue letter likely makes refiling untimely so dismissal may effectively operate as with prejudice
Whether lesser sanctions are required before dismissal	Daniel did not propose lesser sanctions	Defendant and Court find lesser sanctions would be futile given nonresponse	Court: Lesser sanctions would be futile; sua sponte dismissal appropriate

Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (courts have inherent power to control their dockets and dismiss for failure to prosecute)
Griggs v. S.G.E. Mgmt., L.L.C., 905 F.3d 835 (5th Cir.) (Rule 41(b) authorizes sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute)
Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438 (5th Cir.) (dismissal appropriate for failure to obey court orders; lesser sanctions discussion)
Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878 (5th Cir.) (dismissal with prejudice only for clear record of delay or contumacious conduct)
Callip v. Harris Cnty. Child Welfare Dep’t, 757 F.2d 1513 (5th Cir.) (discusses conditions warranting dismissal with prejudice)
Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188 (5th Cir.) (timely Title VII filing does not toll the 90-day EEOC right-to-sue limitations period after dismissal)
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir.) (failure to file specific objections to magistrate judge’s findings bars appellate review)