Chiasson v. Webre et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KOBI CHIASSON

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 24-1666

CRAIG WEBRE, LAFOURCHE PARISH
SHERIFF, ET AL.

SECTION “P”(1)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Kobi Chiasson, a former state prisoner who is proceeding pro se, filed this federal
civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 28, 2024.
1
He sued Sheriff Craig
Webre and John Doe Officers of the Lafourche Parish Sheriff’s Office. On May 8, 2026, after
Chiasson did not identify the John Doe Officers and did not file an amended complaint despite
being given an opportunity to do so, the District Judge dismissed without prejudice Chiasson’s
claims against the John Doe Officers for failure to serve process and failure to prosecute the case
against those defendants.
2

On May 11, 2026, the Court ordered that a preliminary conference before the Staff
Attorney would be held by telephone on Tuesday, June 16, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., to determine
whether all parties will consent to proceed to trial before the undersigned United States Magistrate
Judge.
3
The Court warned Chiasson that his failure to participate in the preliminary conference
would result in a recommendation that Chiasson’s claims be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
4

That order was not returned as undeliverable.

1
Rec. Doc. 1. Chiasson was originally represented by counsel. The Court granted former counsel’s motion to withdraw
on October 21, 2024. Rec. Doc. 12.
2
Rec. Doc. 28.
3
Rec. Doc. 29.
4
Id.
Case 2:24-cv-01666-DJP Document 30 Filed 06/23/26 Page 1 of 3

2
On May 11, 2026, in accordance with the order, the Staff Attorney attempted to convene
the preliminary conference as scheduled. Counsel for defendant, Blake Arcuri, appeared by
telephone. The Staff Attorney made five attempts to call Chiasson for the conference at the
telephone number of record. All calls were met with the following message: “I’m sorry, the person
you are trying to reach has a voicemail box that has not been set up. Please try again later.” In an
abundance of caution, the Staff Attorney also called a second number provided by Chiasson in
Rec. Doc. 22. The person who answered that call advised that he was not Kobi Chiasson and that
the number did not belong to Kobi Chiasson. Chiasson did not thereafter make any attempt to
contact the Staff Attorney or any other member of the Court’s Staff. As a result, the hearing did
not go forward.
Due to Chiasson’s failure to abide by the Court’s Order to participate in the preliminary
conference, it is appropriate to dismiss his remaining claims for want of prosecution.
5
The
authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action because of failure to prosecute is
clear. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1962); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126 (5th
Cir. 1988). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically provide that a court may, in its
discretion, dismiss a plaintiff’s action for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any order of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Court’s
power to dismiss for want of prosecution should be used sparingly, although it may be exercised
sua sponte whenever necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.
Ramsay v. Bailey, 531 F.2d 706, 707 (5th Cir. 1976).
Because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court need consider only his conduct in
determining whether dismissal is proper under Rule 41(b). As noted, Chiasson failed to participate
5
The Court notes that, on April 29, 2025, it was also unable to reach Chiasson at either phone number and, therefore,
he did not participate in the status conference on
that date. Rec. Doc. 25.
Case 2:24-cv-01666-DJP Document 30 Filed 06/23/26 Page 2 of 3

3
in the preliminary conference. Despite being expressly warned that a failure to participate in the
preliminary conference would result in a recommendation that his claims be dismissed for failure
to prosecute, Chiasson did not participate in the conference. Due solely to Chiasson’s failures, this
Court has been unable to hold a preliminary conference as is necessary to advance his case on the
docket. Accordingly, his remaining claims against Sheriff Webre should be dismissed for failure
to prosecute.
RECOMMENDATION
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Chiasson’s remaining claims against Sheriff Craig
Webre be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.
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, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will
result from a failure to object. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79
F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ___ day of June, 2026.
_______________________________________
JANIS VAN MEERVELD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-01666-DJP Document 30 Filed 06/23/26 Page 3 of 3