Edwards v. The State of Texas et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
FREDDIE EDWARDS,
Plaintiff,
versus
STATE OF TEXAS, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-00344
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
OPINION AND ORDER ON DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Freddie Edwards is a former inmate of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Correctional
Institutions Division. He proceeds here pro se.
In January 2025, Plaintiff filed a letter in the Northern
District of Texas, in which he appeared to seek relief
because a state application for writ of habeas corpus filed
in 1993 had never been reviewed by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. He alleged that he served thirty years
in prison as a result of the failure to rule on the application.
Dkt 2. He also sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Dkt 4.
The Northern District construed the letter as a petition
for a federal writ of habeas corpus. Based on venue rules,
it transferred the action to the Southern District of Texas,
where Plaintiff had been convicted. Dkt 5. Plaintiff later
filed an amended complaint, in which he clarified that he
is seeking money damages based on the CCA’s failure to
rule on his state application. Dkt 9.
Due to a clerical error in coding this matter on the
docket, delays occurred in reviewing Plaintiff’s complaint.
Upon review, it was determined that Plaintiff sought relief
available only through a civil-rights action rather than a
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 25, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-00344 Document 12 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
habeas corpus action. In addition, his motion to proceed in
forma pauperis was incomplete.
Plaintiff was ordered to file a second amended
complaint on the approved form for prisoner civil-rights
complaints within thirty days. He was also ordered to
either pay the filing fee for a civil-rights action or file an
amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty
days. The order included blank forms for Plaintiff’s use and
advised him that this action was subject to dismissal
without prejudice for want of prosecution if he didn’t
comply. Dkt 11.
Plaintiff hasn’t complied, and his time to do so has
expired. Under the inherent powers necessarily vested in a
district court to manage its own affairs, this action will be
dismissed for want of prosecution. FRCP 41(b); Link v
Wabash Railroad, 370 US 626, 630-31 (1962); Larson v
Scott, 157 F3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir 1998); James W. Moore,
et al, 8 Moore’s Federal Practice § 41.51(3)(b) & (e)
(Matthew Bender 3d ed 2017).
The Court will grant relief upon a proper showing
under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
See Link, 370 US at 635. A proper showing requires, at
minimum, compliance with the Court’s prior order.
The civil action filed by Plaintiff Freddie Edwards is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Dkt 2.
All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on June 25, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
__________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-00344 Document 12 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2