Jacob v. Southern Fidelity Insurance Company
2:21-cv-01879-SSV
E.D. La.Mar 11, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Hilton James Jacob Jr., a former Jefferson Parish Correctional Center inmate, filed a pro se § 1983 complaint seeking insurance proceeds after an apartment burglary.
- Jacob did not pay the filing fee or file an in forma pauperis application after the complaint was filed in October 2021.
- The Clerk sent a deficiency notice Oct. 15, 2021 (initial mailing returned for missing inmate number); a corrected notice was remailed Jan. 6, 2022 and returned Feb. 18, 2022 marked “No Longer at JPCC” / “Unable to Forward.”
- Jacob made no further contact with the Clerk or the Court and did not provide a current address; his complaint form expressly warned he must keep the Court informed of address changes.
- The magistrate judge found Jacob’s inaction impeded prosecution and recommended dismissal without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) is warranted for failure to prosecute | Jacob made no filings or responses after the deficiency notice; no argument presented | Court: failure to pay fee or file IFP and failure to keep Court apprised justifies dismissal | Complaint recommended dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) |
| Whether pro se status or prison transfer excuses noncompliance / supports "excusable neglect" | Jacob did not assert excusable neglect or claim inability to comply | Court: pro se status does not excuse procedural defaults; plaintiff must show more than ignorance to establish excusable neglect | Pro se status did not excuse failures; dismissal appropriate for lack of prosecution |
Key Cases Cited
- Markwell v. County of Bexar, 878 F.2d 899 (5th Cir. 1989) (courts weigh plaintiff responsibility for delay when considering dismissal)
- Price v. McGlathery, 792 F.2d 472 (5th Cir. 1986) (same)
- Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592 (5th Cir. 1981) (pro se litigants are not exempt from procedural rules)
- Kersh v. Derozier, 851 F.2d 1509 (5th Cir. 1988) (excusable neglect requires proof beyond mere ignorance)
- Lewis v. Hardy, [citation="248 F. App'x 589"] (5th Cir. 2007) (failure to notify court of address change may justify dismissal)
- Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (procedural rule on objections to magistrate recommendations and consequences of failing to object)