Smith v. Nueces County Jail et al

1 / 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
EDWARD DESHAN SMITH,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00288
NUECES COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Plaintiff Edward Deshan Smith appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed
this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He currently resides at the
Vernon State Hospital in Vernon, Texas. Plaintiff sues Nueces County Jail, Nueces County
Jail officers, state court officers, attorneys, and members of law enforcement located in
Corpus Christi, Texas. (D.E.s 5-8).
Due to difficulties encountered in evaluating Plaintiff’s claims as they were
presented in his pleadings, the undersigned issued an Order on November 25, 2025,
directing Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint on or before December 29, 2025.
(D.E. 18). In the November 25 Order, the undersigned noted numerous deficiencies with
Plaintiff’s previous pleadings, including the fact that Plaintiff presented his allegations “in
a stream of consciousness narrative … that are unorganized, confusing, and difficult to
decipher.” (D.E. 18, pp. 1-2). Accordingly, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to file a
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 20, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:25-cv-00288 Document 22 Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2 / 4
second amended complaint that complied with detailed instructions. Id.
In response to the November 25 Order, Plaintiff submitted a series of letters in three
envelopes. (D.E. 19; D.E. 19-1 through 19-5). Plaintiff’s letters failed in several respects
to comply with the instructions provided in the November 25 Order. First, Plaintiff did title
any of his letters as “Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint” on the top of the first page.
Second, Plaintiff’s letters failed to list the defendants sued in this action, explain in a short,
factual statement what each defendant did to violate Plaintiff’s rights, or otherwise explain
why the person is named as a defendant. Plaintiff again presented his allegations though a
confusing, stream of consciousness, narrative which failed to alert the Court the precise
claims that Plaintiff seeks to bring against each named defendant.
On December 12, 2025, after striking Plaintiff’s letters, the undersigned ordered
Plaintiff to file a proper second amended complaint on or before January 12, 2026. (D.E.
20). Plaintiff failed to file a proper second amended complaint as directed. On January
15, 2026, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show cause on or before February 4, 2026,
why this action should not be dismissed for want of prosecution under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b). (D.E. 21). The undersigned instructed Plaintiff that he would
successfully comply with the Show Cause Order by timely filing his proper second
amended complaint. Id. at 3. Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply with the
Show Cause Order in a timely fashion would result in the undersigned recommending the
dismissal of this action. Id.
Case 2:25-cv-00288 Document 22 Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3 / 4
A district court has authority to dismiss a case for want of prosecution or for failure
to comply with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d
769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding district courts have the power to sua sponte dismiss a
cause of action for failure to prosecute). To date, Plaintiff has not responded to either the
December 12 Order to File a Proper Second Amended Complaint (D.E. 20) or the Show
Cause Order (D.E. 21). Plaintiff has failed to follow court orders requiring him to submit
his proper second amended complaint. He has been previously advised that this action may
be dismissed for want of prosecution if she fails to comply with a court order. Dismissal
is therefore warranted under these circumstances.
Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Plaintiff’s action be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b).
Respectfully submitted on February 20, 2026.
____________________________
Julie K. Hampton
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00288 Document 22 Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4 / 4
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to
each party or counsel. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of
the Memorandum and Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the
United States Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), General Order No. 2002-13, United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions,
and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon
grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual
findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs.
Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc).
Case 2:25-cv-00288 Document 22 Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4