Havens v. Mills et al;

1 / 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER DALE HAVENS, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-CV-00299
BILL MILLS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The undersigned recommends that the district court DISMISS Plaintiff’s lawsuit without
prejudice for failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Plaintiff Christopher Dale Havens, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this
prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. Nos. 1, 44.) There is an ongoing
discovery dispute in this case. In January 2026, Defendants filed a motion to have matters
deemed admitted and to compel Plaintiff to respond to their interrogatories and requests for
production. (Doc. No. 113.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ motion on or
before February 16, 2026, or to submit an affidavit by that date explaining why he could not
respond to the motion. The Court warned Plaintiff that if he did not comply, his lawsuit could be
dismissed for failure to follow court orders or for failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 115, p. 2.)
Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order.
On March 2, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause on or before March 23 why
his lawsuit should not be dismissed for failure to follow court orders or for want of prosecution.
(Doc. No. 116.) The show-cause order directed Plaintiff that he could comply by doing any of
the following:
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 26, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:22-cv-00299 Document 118 Filed 03/26/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2 / 3
• Filing a response by March 23, 2026 to the Defendants’ discovery motion (Doc. No.
113); OR
• Submitting a signed affidavit by March 23, 2026, explaining why he cannot respond
to Defendants’ discovery motion; OR
• Responding by March 23, 2026 to Defendants’ discovery requests.
Id. at 2. Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to comply with the show-cause order, the result
would be a recommendation that his lawsuit be dismissed. Id. at 1.
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the show-cause order. He has neither responded to the
discovery motion nor filed an affidavit explaining why he could not respond to that motion. In a
March 24 advisory, Defendants notified the Court that Plaintiff still has not responded to the
discovery requests. (Doc. No. 117.)
A district court may dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (“The
district court also has the inherent authority to dismiss an action sua sponte, without motion by a
defendant.”). The litigation of this case has been stymied by Plaintiff’s failure to cooperate with
discovery obligations or to respond to the Court’s orders. Plaintiff has been warned that
dismissal might result if he failed to comply with the Court’s orders, but he has ignored those
warnings. Dismissal of Plaintiff’s case is appropriate.
Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s case be DISMISSED without
prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The district court should DENY all
pending motions as moot, including Defendants’ motion to deem matters admitted and compel
discovery responses (Doc. No. 113).
The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to each
party or counsel. Within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Memorandum and
Case 2:22-cv-00299 Document 118 Filed 03/26/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3 / 3
Recommendation, any party may file with the Clerk and serve on the United States Magistrate
Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),
and General Order No. 2002-13, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
A failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within 14 days after being
served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on
appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions that are accepted by the
district court. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996)
(en banc).
SIGNED on March 26, 2026.
_____________________________
MITCHEL NEUROCK
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:22-cv-00299 Document 118 Filed 03/26/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3