LaCour v. Gonzalez et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DARIAS T. LaCOUR,
(TDCJ # 02143625)
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
vs.
ED GONZALEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. H-25-4381
§
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Darias T. 	Lacour 	is 	incarcerated in the Texas Department 	of
Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division. In September 2025, he filed a
letter that was construed as a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
that various Harris County Officials had either lost or stolen certain evidence that he
contends would have established his innocence. (Dkt. 1). He later filed an amended
complaint and two supplements. (Dkts. 15, 18, 19). He proceeds here prose.
On April 9, 2026, the Court ordered Lacour to provide a more definite
statement of his claims. (Dkt. 20). The order included a list of questions for Lacour
to answer about his claims against each defendant, and it required him to file his
response to those questions under oath within thirty days. 	(Id.).
Lacour mailed a letter to the Court after receiving the order for more definite
1/ 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 26, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04381 Document 22 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

statement, in which he acknowledges receiving the order. 	(Dkt. 21). But the letter
does not answer the questions asked in the Court's order, does not attempt to further
explain his claims, and is not signed under oath. (Dkt. 21). Despite having had the
Court's order for no less than six weeks, LaCour has made no attempt to respond to
it. 	He has therefore failed to comply with the Court's order, and his time to do so
has now expired.
LaCour's failure to pursue this action in compliance with the Court's orders
forces the Court to conclude that he lacks due diligence. 	Therefore, under the
inherent powers necessarily vested in a court to manage its own affairs, the Court
determines that dismissal for want of prosecution is appropriate. See FED. R. C1v. P.
41(b); Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998) (noting that a district
court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with
any court order).
2/ 3
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. LaCour's civil-rights action, (Dkt. 1), is DISMISSED without prejudice for
want of prosecution.
2. Any pending motions are DENIED as moot.
3. LaCour is advised that upon a showing of good cause for failing to comply
with the Court's April 9 Order, relief from this Order may be granted under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Any motion under Rule 60(b) must be
Case 4:25-cv-04381 Document 22 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3/ 3
accompanied by LaCour' s sworn response to the April 9 Order for More
Definite Statement.
The Clerk will provide a copy of this Order to the plaintiff.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas on ----~~~=--,...,.,,~2._,___, 2026.
c:Tu~(~DAVID HITTNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-04381 Document 22 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3