Thompson v. James Thompson

1 / 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
SIDNEY MAURICE THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00273
JACQUELYN JEAN JAMES
THOMPSON,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Plaintiff Sidney Maurice Thompson, proceeding pro se, has filed this prisoner civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.E. 1). Plaintiff is a pretrial inmate confined
in the Nueces County Jail in Corpus Christi, Texas. In the Clerk’s Notice of Deficient
Pleading issued on October 14, 2025, Plaintiff was notified that he must do the following
within thirty days:
Pay a fee of $405.00 or provide an application to proceed in forma pauperis
[(“IFP”)]. The applicant is instructed to attach a certified copy of his inmate
trust fund account history containing the deposits and monthly balances for
the six month period preceding the filing of this lawsuit. The applicant is
advised to request a certified copy of his trust account from the unit law
librarian.
Complete the attached form(s) and provide the original(s) to the court.
(D.E. 3). The Clerk attached to the Notice of Deficient Pleading a blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983
form and a blank IFP application. (D.E.’s 3-1 & 3-2). Plaintiff was warned that his failure
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 11, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:25-cv-00273 Document 6 Filed 12/11/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2 / 4
to comply with the Notice of Deficient Pleading in a timely manner may result in his case
being dismissed for want of prosecution. (D.E. 3). Plaintiff failed to respond to the Notice
of Deficient Pleading.
On November 18, 2025, the undersigned issued an Order directing Plaintiff to show
cause why this case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. (D.E. 5). The
November 18 Order directed Plaintiff that he would comply by:
● EITHER PAYING the $405.00 filing fee OR SUBMITTING a completed
IFP application along with a copy of his inmate trust fund account statement
(or institutional equivalent) for the six-month period immediately preceding
the filing of the complaint; AND
● SUBMITTING the completed § 1983 form.
Id. at 2. Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply would result in the undersigned
recommending to the district court that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed without prejudice for
want of prosecution. Id. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s November 18
Show Cause Order.
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.”). Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to satisfy the requirements
to pursue this case and has not complied with the Court’s orders. The Court has advised
Plaintiff multiple times, through a Notice of Deficient Pleading (D.E. 3) and the November
Case 2:25-cv-00273 Document 6 Filed 12/11/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3 / 4
18 Show Cause Order (D.E. 5), that this action would be subject to dismissal if he failed to
comply with these court orders. Despite the Court’s warnings and opportunities to remedy
this case’s deficiencies, Plaintiff has failed to follow court orders by: (1) either paying the
filing fee or applying to proceed in forma pauperis; and (2) submitting the completed §
1983 form.
For these reasons, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s case be
DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).1
Respectfully submitted on December 11, 2025.
____________________________
Julie K. Hampton
United States Magistrate Judge
1 The undersigned notes that Plaintiff filed a separate prisoner civil rights action shortly after filing this one. See
Thompson v. United States of America, No. 2:25-CV-277 (S.D. Tex.) (“Thompson II”). In a Memorandum and
Recommendation issued on December 10, 2025, Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby recommended the dismissal of
Thompson II pursuant to Rule 41(b). Magistrate Judge Libby noted that Plaintiff has an extensive history of filing pro
se cases seeking to proceed in forma pauperis and then failing to prosecute them, resulting in their dismissals.
(Thompson II, D.E. 9, p. 2). Due to Plaintiff’s history of vexatious litigation, Magistrate Judge Libby recommended
that the district court impose certain filing restrictions against Plaintiff as well as a monetary sanction of $50.00. Id.,
D.E. 9 at 3. While this action represents another instance where Plaintiff has not prosecuted his case to date, the
undersigned does not find it necessary to recommend sanctions in addition to the filing restrictions and monetary
sanctions recommended by Magistrate Judge Libby.
Case 2:25-cv-00273 Document 6 Filed 12/11/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4 / 4
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to
each party or counsel. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of
the Memorandum and Recommendation, a 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), General Order No. 2002-13, United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions,
and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within
FOURTEEN (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 accepted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs.
Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc).
Case 2:25-cv-00273 Document 6 Filed 12/11/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 4