Thompson v. United States of America See Order - DE 16 - pltff must obtain leave of court before filing.

1 / 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
SIDNEY MAURICE THOMPSON
Plaintiff
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00277
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS
CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Plaintiff filed this prisoner civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on
October 17, 2025. (D.E. 1). The same day, the U.S. District Clerk notified Plaintiff that
his pleading was deficient for failing to pay the filing fee or properly requesting to proceed
in forma pauperis (IFP”). (D.E. 4). Plaintiff was directed to comply by November 17, 2025,
and was notified that failure to comply may result in his case being dismissed. Plaintiff
did not comply.
Therefore, on November 24, 2025, the Court entered a Notice of Deficiency and
Order to Show Cause, ordering Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or submit an IFP
application along with a copy of his trust fund statement on or before December 8, 2025.
(D.E. 6). Plaintiff was again notified that failure to comply may result in dismissal for
want of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply.
Further, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause on or before December 8, 2025, why
he should not sanctioned, including restrictions on his ability to file future lawsuits without
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 10, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:25-cv-00277 Document 9 Filed 12/10/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2 / 4
leave of court and monetary sanctions, for failing to prosecute at least eight cases in the
Southern District of Texas during the past three years. (D.E. 6, Pages 2-3). Plaintiff did
not file a response to the order to show cause. Plaintiff has filed at least eight cases in the
Southern District of Texas, seeking to proceed in forma pauperis, and has then failed to
prosecute them, resulting in their dismissals. See Case Nos. 2:22-cv-8; 2:24-cv-28; 2:24-
cv-107; 2:24-cv-119; 2:24-cv-156; 2:24-cv-246; 4:24-cv-3572; 2:25-cv-22. In short,
Plaintiff is abusing the judicial process, is pursuing litigation in bad faith, is delaying the
Court’s consideration of other cases and is avoiding filing restrictions pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 as his cases are dismissed for failure to prosecute rather than on the merits. Federal
courts have inherent authority “to protect the efficient and orderly administration of justice
and…to command respect for [its] orders, judgments, procedures, and authority.” In re
Stone, 986 F.2d 898, 902 (5th Cir. 1993). Included in such power is the authority “to levy
sanctions in response to abusive litigation practices.” Id. (citation omitted). Pro se litigants
have “no license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and
abuse already overloaded court dockets.” Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d
358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986). When a litigant abuses the judicial process by filing frivolous
actions or by commencing actions and failing to prosecute them to fruition, monetary
sanctions and a prohibition “against the filing of future civil rights suits without prior
consent of a district or magistrate judge” are appropriate sanctions. Murphy v. Collins, 26
F.3d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
Case 2:25-cv-00277 Document 9 Filed 12/10/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3 / 4
Therefore, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); see also Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir.
1997) (Holding district courts have the power to sua sponte dismiss a cause of action for
failure to prosecute). It is further RECOMMENDED, given Plaintiff’s history of filing
vexatious civil actions and weighing all relevant circumstances, that Plaintiff be
SANCTIONED $50.00 and be required to obtain leave of Court before filing any further
pro se actions in the Southern District of Texas. It is also RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff
be required to certify in a sworn affidavit that he has paid the $50.00 sanction should he
seek leave of Court to file any future pro se action in the Southern District of Texas. Judd
v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 311 F. App’x 730, 731 (5th Cir. 2009) (Affirming a $500.00
sanction and requiring the plaintiff to obtain leave of course before filing any further civil
actions and requiring plaintiff to submit certification). Plaintiff is CAUTIONED that
filing any frivolous actions and/or failing to prosecute any further actions in any court in
the Southern District of Texas will subject him to additional and progressively more severe
sanctions.
ORDERED on December 10, 2025.
_______________________________
Jason B. Libby
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00277 Document 9 Filed 12/10/25 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 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(c); Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and Article IV, 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
recommendations 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-00277 Document 9 Filed 12/10/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 4