Granderson v. Officer Williams

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ROXANNE M. GRANDERSON, a/k/a 	§
ROXAND M. GRANDERSON 	§
(SPN # 02027037), 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
vs. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-134
§
OFFICER WILLIAMS, 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Roxanne M. 	Granderson, 	a/k/a Roxand M. 	Granderson, 	(SPN
# 02027037), was formerly a pretrial detainee in the Harris County Jail. In January
2026, she filed a prisoner civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
violations of her constitutional rights by City of Baytown Police Officer Williams in
connection with her arrest. 	(Dkt. 1). 	Granderson also filed a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, but that motion was not accompanied by a certified copy
of her inmate trust fund account statement or the· institutional equivalent, as required
by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Dkt. 2).
On January 	12; 	2026, the 	Court .ordered Granderson to 	either pay the
applicable filing fee or fil~ a properly supported motion to proceed in forma pauperis
by February 11, 2026. (Dkt. 6). The Court later granted Granderson's letter motion
1/ 4
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 27, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00134 Document 12 Filed 04/27/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

for additional time to provide the required inmate trust fund account information.
(Dkt. 10). 	Both orders warned Granderson that if she failed to comply, her action
would be dismissed without further notice under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
The order granting Granderson's letter motion for an extension of time has
been returned as undeliverable, with a notation stating that Granderson has been
released from custody. 	(Dkt. 11 ). 	Granderson has not provided the Court with an
updated address since her release from jail.
Granderson's action will be dismissed for two reasons. 	First, actions in
federal court will not proceed unless the plaintiff has either paid the full amount of
the filing fee or been granted leave to proceed informa pauperis. 	See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1914(a). Granderson has done neither. Her action must therefore be dismissed for
failing to comply with the Court's orders regarding payment of the filing fee.
Second, "litigants, including prisoners, 'bear the burden of filing notice of a
change of address in such a way that will bring the attention of the court to the
address change."' 	Snyder v. Nolen, 380 F.3d 279, 285 (7th Cir. 2004) (quoting
Theede v. US. Dep 't ofLabor, 172 F.3d 1262, 1267 (10th Cir. 1999)). Rule 83.4 of
the Local Rules for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, makes a pro
se litigant responsible for keeping the Clerk advised in writing of his current address.
And the Fifth Circuit has held that "the failure of a prose litigant to notify the district
2/ 4
Case 4:26-cv-00134 Document 12 Filed 04/27/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

court of an address change may be considered by the district court as an additional
cause for dismissal for failure to prosecute." Lewis v. Hardy, 248 F. App'x 589, 593
n.1 (5th Cir. 2007).
Granderson's failure to pursue this action by paying the applicable filing fee
and maintaining a current address with the Clerk of Court forces the Court to
conclude that she lacks due diligence. 	Therefore, under the inherent powers
necessarily vested in a court to manage its own affairs, this Court determines that
dismissal for want of prosecution is appropriate. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Larson
v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030 (5th Cir. 1998) (noting that a district court may sua sponte
dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with any court order).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	Grandersop's civil-rights action, (Dkt. 	l), is DISMISSED without
prejudice for want of prosecution.
2. 	All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
3. 	Granderson is advised that upon a showing of good cause for failing to
comply with the Court's January 12 and March 31 Orders, relief from this Order
may be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b ). 	Any motion under
Rule 60(b) must be accompanied by either payment of the filing fee or a properly
3/ 4
Case 4:26-cv-00134 Document 12 Filed 04/27/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

supported motion to proceed informa pauperis and an updated address.
4/ 4
The Clerk will provide a copy of this Order to Granderson.
/l.A~ 	27
SIGNED at Houston, Texas on 	~ 	, 2026.---~--------
DAVID HITTNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00134 Document 12 Filed 04/27/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4