IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
AARON FLOTA §
§
VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25cv1039
§
GRAYSON COUNTY JAIL §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Aaron Flota filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
action was assigned to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with the
Standing Order Assigning Prisoner Civil Rights Cases Filed in the Sherman Division to a
Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. #2). Plaintiff consented to have the undersigned conduct all proceedings.
(Dkt. #4).
Mail that was sent to Plaintiff was returned and marked “RTS [return to sender] – Not Here
– Released 12/22/25.” (Dkt. ##13, 15). It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to notify the Clerk of Court
of his new address. See Loc. R. CV-11(d). Because Plaintiff has not updated his address with the
court, he has failed to prosecute his case.
The exercise of the power to dismiss for failure to prosecute is committed to the sound
discretion of the court; appellate review is only for abuse of that discretion. Green v. Forney Eng’g
Co., 589 F.2d 243, 247 (5th Cir. 1979); Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. ISD, 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir.
1978). Not only may a district court dismiss for want of prosecution upon motion of a defendant,
but it may also dismiss an action sua sponte when necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious
disposition of a case. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–31 (1962); Anthony v. Marion
Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980). In this case, Plaintiff’s failure to submit
an updated mailing address evinces his failure to prosecute his case. See Johnson v. Dir., TDCJ-
CID, No. 6:20CV081, 2023 WL 2396910, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2023), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 6:20CV081, 2023 WL 2390667 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2023);
Montgomery v. Keal, No. CIV.A.1:05-CV-5, 2009 WL 1408512, at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 19, 2009).
Therefore, the case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
It is accordingly ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(b). Any pending motions are denied as moot.
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.