Jackson v. Santini et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
RAY JACKSON,
(Inmate# 2026138),
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
vs. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26.'.3687
§
VINCENZO SANTINI, et al., 	§
§
§
Defendants. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Ray Jackson, (Inmate # 2026138), is currently detained in the
Beeville County Jail. On May 6, 2026, he filed a com plaint under 42 U.S. C. § 1983
against 	Montgomery County Assistant 	District Attorney Vincenzo 	Santini,
Montgomery County Commissioner James Metts, and an unknownMontgomezy
County Clerk's Office employee. (Dkt. 1). Jackson alleged that the defendants each
violated his 	civil-rights in 	connection with a 	previous 	state-court criminal
prosecution. (Id. at 3-4). On May 10, 2026, theCourtorderedJackson to either pay
the applicable filing fee for a civil-rights action or file a properly supported motion
to proceed in forma pauperis by June 9, 2026. 	(Dkt. 4). 	The Court provided the
proper form to Jackson for his use and warned him that failing to comply as ordered
1/ 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 26, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-03687 Document 5 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

would result in the Court dismissing his action without further notice under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (b ). 	(Id.).
Jackson has failed to comply, and his time to do so has now expired. 	His
failure to pursue this action 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. Crv. 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).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	Jackson's civil-rights action, (Dkt. 	1), 	1s 	DISMISSED without
prejudice for want of prosecution.
2. 	Any pending motions are DENIED as moot.
3. 	Jackson is advised that upon a showing of good cause for failing to
com ply with the Court's May 10 Order, relief from this Order may be granted under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 	Any motion under Rule 60(b) must be
accompanied by either payment of the $405.00 filing fee or a properly supported
motion to proceed informa pauperis.
2/ 3
Case 4:26-cv-03687 Document 5 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

The Clerk will provide a copy of this Order to the petitioner.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas on 	r<L- 	'2..s' 	, 2026.
~tfutl-AVID HITTNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT ITJDGE
3/ 3
Case 4:26-cv-03687 Document 5 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3