Griffin v. Equifax Information Services LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Chelsea Griffin,
Plaintiff,
v.
Equifax Information Services,
LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action H-25-6378
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
This case has been referred to the undersigned magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 5. The court
recommends this case be DISMISSED with PREJUDICE for
failure to prosecute.
1. Background
Plaintiff Chelsea Griffin filed this lawsuit against Defendant
Equifax Information Services, LLC (Equifax) in December 2025.
ECF No. 1. Plaintiff was conditionally granted in forma pauperis
(IFP) status on February 3, 2026. ECF No. 7. The Order
conditionally granting IFP status explains that Plaintiff must
submit a completed summons and Form USM-285 to the court. Id.
Plaintiff, however, has not submitted the required summons and
Form USM-285 to the Clerk’s Office.
A scheduling conference in this case was set for April 30,
2026. ECF No. 6. On January 28, 2026, the court mailed a Notice
of Hearing to the physical address that Plaintiff provided when
she filed this lawsuit. Notice Reports, Ct. Ex. 1, at 1–2. Plaintiff
did not appear at the scheduling conference. See Docket Entry
dated 04/30/2026 (noting that the scheduling conference was held
and Plaintiff failed to appear).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 08, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-06378 Document 9 Filed 06/08/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
The court then issued an Order to Show Cause, which
ordered Plaintiff to appear in-person at a hearing on June 4, 2026,
at 11:30 a.m., and show cause as to why her case should not be
dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 8. The order included
a warning that “Failure to appear will result in a
recommendation that this case be dismissed with prejudice
for failure to prosecute.” Id. (emphasis in original). The Order
was docketed on the court’s CM/ECF system, and a copy of the
Order was mailed to Plaintiff to her last-known address. ECF
No. 8; Notice Reports at 2.
On June 4, 2026, at 11:30 a.m., the court held the Show
Cause hearing as scheduled. Plaintiff failed to appear.
2. Legal Standard and Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits involuntary
dismissal of an action when “the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to
comply with these rules or a court order[.]” “It is well established
that Rule 41(b) permits dismissal not only on motion of the
defendant, but also on the court’s own motion.” Campbell v.
Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 2021) (clarifying that the
court’s power to dismiss does not extend to failure to comply with
a local rule). The court’s decision to dismiss under Rule 41(b) may
be reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Id. at 801.
Rule 41(b) dismissal with prejudice is “a severe sanction”
that requires (1) “a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct
by the plaintiff[;]” and (2) an express finding that “lesser sanctions
would not prompt diligent prosecution, or the record shows that
the district court employed lesser sanctions that proved to be
futile.” Campbell, 988 F.3d at 801–02 (quoting Berry v.
CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir. 1992)). The
Fifth Circuit generally also requires proof of at least one of the
following aggravating factors: (1) the delay was caused by the
Case 4:25-cv-06378 Document 9 Filed 06/08/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
plaintiff and not the plaintiff’s attorney; (2) the defendant was
prejudiced by the delay; or (3) the delay can be characterized as
intentional. Id. at 802.
3. Analysis
A. Clear Record of Delay
Plaintiff is appearing pro se, so she is responsible for all
efforts to prosecute this case. Plaintiff has failed to appear at two
separate court settings. A copy of the notice report from the clerk’s
office shows that the order setting the scheduling conference and
the Order to Show Cause were sent to the Plaintiff’s mailing
address. Notice Reports at 1–2. Plaintiff has not contacted the
court to provide an updated address. Other than initiating this
lawsuit, Plaintiff has taken no actions to further her case. These
facts show a clear record of delay.
B. Futility of Lesser Sanctions
The court set a show cause hearing and warned Plaintiff that
her failure to appear would result in a recommendation that her
case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 8. The Order to
Show Cause was docketed on the court’s electronic filing system,
and a copy of the Order was mailed to Plaintiff’s mailing address.
Notice Reports at 1–2. There appears to be nothing the court can
do to get the Plaintiff’s attention on this case. There are no other
steps the court can take that will prompt Plaintiff to participate.
Lesser sanctions would be futile.
C. Aggravating Factors
Plaintiff has failed to appear for two court-ordered hearings
and has made no attempt to communicate with the court. Plaintiff
has not submitted the completed summons and Form USM-285 to
the court, so Equifax remains unserved. Plaintiff does not have a
lawyer. Delay is attributable only to Plaintiff, and it can only be
characterized as intentional.
Case 4:25-cv-06378 Document 9 Filed 06/08/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
4. Conclusion
The court recommends that this case be DISMISSED with
PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.
The parties have fourteen days from service of this
Memorandum and Recommendation to file written objections. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Failure to timely file
objections will preclude appellate review of factual findings or legal
conclusions, except for plain error. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 147–49 (1985); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276–77 (5th
Cir. 1988).
Signed at Houston, Texas, on June 8, 2026.
______________________________________
Peter Bray
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-06378 Document 9 Filed 06/08/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4