USA v. Bass

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
V.
AVERY FRANK BASS, JR.,
Civil Action No. H-25-2580
Criminal Action No. H-23-473-1
Defendant/Petitioner.
ORDER
On June 18, 2026, the Court ordered prose Petitioner Avery Frank Bass, Jr.
to "show cause as to why his § 225 5 motion should not be dismissed pursuant to the
Rules Governing Section 2255 proceedings Rule 2(b)(5) NO LATER THAN
FORTY-FIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF TIDS ORDER."1 The Court
further warned that "failure to comply with this Order and show cause by the
aforementioned deadline may result in the denial of Petitioner's § 2255 motion
without further notice." 2
The Court has provided ample opportunity for Petitioner to respond to the
Court's show cause order. Petitioner has failed to comply with the Court's order
within either the original response deadline or the date of this Order. "If the plaintiff
1 Show Cause Order, Criminal Document No. 98 at 3 (emphasis in original).
2 Show Cause Order, Criminal Document No. 98 at 3.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
October 08, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:23-cr-00473 Document 102 Filed 10/08/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may
move to dismiss the action or any claim against it." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Link
v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962) (interpreting Rule 41(b) as giving the
court the power to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint sua sponte, without a motion by a
defendant). 3 Considering the applicable law and Petitioner's failure to comply with
the Court's Show Cause Order, the Court finds that Petitioner's § 2255 motion
should be dismissed. 4 The Court now considers whether or not a certificate of
appealability should issue in this matter.
District 	courts 	may 	deny 	certificates 	of 	appealability 	sua 	sponte. 	See
Alexander v. Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 2000). When§ 2255 claims have
been dismissed on procedural grounds, the petitioner must show that "jurists of
reason would find it debatable whether the district' court was correct in its procedural
ruling." Slack v. 	McDaniel, 	529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Having considered the
pending motion, submissions, and applicable law, the Court finds that no certificate
of appealability should issue in this matter. Accordingly, the Court hereby
3 The Court notes that mail was returned undeliverable with respect to the Court's
Show Cause Order. See Criminal Document No. 100. Nonetheless, the Court notes that
Petitioner has an obligation to update his address and that mail being returned undeliverable
does not relieve Petitioner of his obligation to comply with the Court's Order. See Zuniga-
Ortiz v. United States, No. 1:17-CR-372-1, 2019 WL 4545955, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 23,
2019), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Ortiz v. United States, No. 1:18-CV-
00110, 2019 WL 4538191 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2019) (dismissing Petitioner's 2255 motion
for 	failure 	to 	comply 	despite 	mail 	being 	returned 	undeliverable).
2
Case 4:23-cr-00473 Document 102 Filed 10/08/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

ORDERS that Petitioner's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Civil Document No. 1)
(Criminal Document No. 93) is DENIED. The Court further
ORDERS that Petitioner's civil matter brought against Respondent the
United States of America is hereby DISMISSED. The Court further
ORDERS that a certificate of appealability will not issue.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this _!l_ day of October, 2026.
3
DAVID HITTNER
United States District Judge
Case 4:23-cr-00473 Document 102 Filed 10/08/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3