Angulo v. G.E.O. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
OSCAR A. ANGULO, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:25-CV-305
G.E.O., et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Oscar A. Angulo, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket No. 1.) In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges he is
being deprived of his legal rights because he is in the hospital and not afforded the ability to contact
his family or attorney, or to review legal material. (Id. at 4-6.) On June 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed a
Motion/Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, and later submitted his Prisoner Trust Fund
Account Statement. (Docket Nos. 3, 8.) Several weeks later, Plaintiff moved to amend his
complaint. (Docket No. 10.) On October 15, 2025, the Court issued an Order providing notice to
the payment of the filing fee pursuant to an order granting a motion to proceed in forma pauperis,
allowing Plaintiff to seek voluntary dismissal if he did not wish to pay the filing fee. (Docket No.
11.) However, on October 27, 2025, the Order was returned as undeliverable. (See Docket No.
12.) Since Plaintiff has failed to update his address, he has failed to prosecute this action.
Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed.
I. BACKGROUND
As noted, Plaintiff filed this civil rights action asserting a violation of his constitutional
rights. Specifically, he alleges that he was unable to call his family and unable to review his legal
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 18, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 7:25-cv-00305 Document 13 Filed 11/18/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
materials because he was hospitalized due to an assault by an officer. (Docket No. 1, at 4-6.) He
seeks an order requiring the facility to allow him to contact his family and attorney as he pleases.
(Id. at 5.)
After submitting his Motion/Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, the Court issued
its Order on July 11, 2025, requiring Plaintiff to submit the certified copy of his prisoner trust fund
account statement. (Docket Nos. 3, 5.) In that Order, the Court made it clear that Plaintiff was
required to keep the Court updated as to his address, and that failure to do so could be construed
as a failure to prosecute. (Docket No. 5.) The Plaintiff responded promptly on July 28, 2025, with
his Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement. (Docket No. 8.) Additionally, he submitted his
Motion to Amend his Complaint on August 15, 2025. (Docket No. 10.) However, after the Court
issued its October Order, the mail was returned as undeliverable. (Docket Nos. 11, 12.)
Specifically, the envelope states that the addressee moved and left no forwarding address. (Docket
No. 12). Additionally, Plaintiff has not updated his address with the Court, nor has he had any
contact with the Court since.
II. ANALYSIS
This action is subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Rule 41(b) provides that an
action may be involuntarily dismissed where a party “fails to prosecute or to comply with these
rules or a court order.” FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). Such a dismissal may be made upon motion by the
opposing party or on the court’s own motion. See McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127
(5th Cir. 1988). While a court should be “appropriately lenient” with a party who is proceeding
pro se, the “‘right of self-representation does not exempt a party from compliance with relevant
rules of procedural and substantive law.’” Hulsey v. Texas, 929 F.2d 168, 171 (5th Cir. 1991)
(quoting Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1981)).
Case 7:25-cv-00305 Document 13 Filed 11/18/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the relevant rules and to prosecute this action. As a
general rule, “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. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 172 F.3d 1262, 1267
(10th Cir. 1999)). This requirement is memorialized in the Southern District of Texas Local Rules,
which provide that “[a] lawyer or pro se litigant is responsible for keeping the clerk advised in
writing of the current address.” LR 83.4. Plaintiff has failed to provide an updated address to the
Clerk as required by Local Rule 83.4. As explained above, the last court document sent to Plaintiff
was returned as undeliverable. (See Docket Nos. 11, 12.)
In sum, because Plaintiff has failed to provide an updated address in compliance with Local
Rule 83.4, and otherwise failed to communicate with the Court, this case should be dismissed for
failure to prosecute. See Torres v. Krueger, 596 F. App’x 319, 321 (5th Cir. 2015) (In affirming
the district court’s dismissal of the action with prejudice, the Fifth Circuit noted the parties’ failure
to respond to the court’s order.); see also Lewis v. Hardy, 248 F. App’x 589, 593 n.1 (5th Cir.
2007) (stating that “the failure of a pro se litigant to notify the district court of an address change
may be considered by the district court as an additional cause for dismissal for failure to
prosecute”); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure
to comply with local rule requiring pro se litigants to keep court apprised of their correct address);
Day v. Cockrell, No. 3:01-cv-1325-P, 2002 WL 31757777, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2002)
(dismissing § 2254 habeas petition where petitioner failed to notify court of his change of address
and orders were returned to the court as undeliverable). No less drastic sanction is available here,
given that the last court document was returned as undeliverable and the Court thus cannot
Case 7:25-cv-00305 Document 13 Filed 11/18/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
communicate with Plaintiff.1 See Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441 (dismissal without prejudice was the
least drastic sanction where any attempt to provide further notice would be “a futile gesture” given
pro se litigant’s failure to provide a change of address).
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned respectfully recommends that this civil action
be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.
NOTICE
The Clerk shall send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff, who has
fourteen (14) days after receipt thereof to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to file timely written
objections shall bar an aggrieved party from receiving a de novo review by the District Court on
an issue covered in this Report and, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal
the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court.
SO ORDERED, the 18th of November, 2025 at McAllen, Texas.
______________________________
NADIA S. MEDRANO
United States Magistrate Judge
1 Should Plaintiff respond to this Report, the District Court may then wish to consider
whether less drastic sanctions might be appropriate.
Case 7:25-cv-00305 Document 13 Filed 11/18/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 4