From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Phelps v. Dir., TDCJ-CID

United States District Court, Northern District of Texas
Sep 19, 2021
CIVIL 3:21-CV-1248-G-BK (N.D. Tex. Sep. 19, 2021)

Opinion

CIVIL 3:21-CV-1248-G-BK

09-19-2021

David Phelps, #2217535, Petitioner, v. Director, TDCJ-CID, Respondent.


FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

RENEE HARRIS TOLIVER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this case was referred to the United States magistrate judge for case management, including the issuance of findings and a recommended disposition where appropriate. For the reasons that follow, this action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a Court order.

On June 2, 2021, the Court issued a deficiency order, which required Petitioner to pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 8. The deadline for Petitioner's response was July 1, 2021. As of the date of this recommendation, however, he has not responded to the Court's order, nor has he sought an extension of time to do so.

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “This authority flows from the court's inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)). 1

Petitioner has been given ample opportunity to respond to the Court's deficiency order. He has impliedly refused or declined to do so. Therefore, this action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a Court order and for lack of prosecution. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) (an involuntary dismissal “operates as an adjudication on the merits, ” unless otherwise specified).

Petitioner is cautioned that the 1996 amendments to the habeas corpus statute impose a one-year statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus petitions in federal court, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), and that this provision is applicable to this petition as well as to any other petition that he may file in this Court.

SO RECOMMENDED

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is made, the basis for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. SeeDouglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections to 14 days). 2


Summaries of

Phelps v. Dir., TDCJ-CID

United States District Court, Northern District of Texas
Sep 19, 2021
CIVIL 3:21-CV-1248-G-BK (N.D. Tex. Sep. 19, 2021)
Case details for

Phelps v. Dir., TDCJ-CID

Case Details

Full title:David Phelps, #2217535, Petitioner, v. Director, TDCJ-CID, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of Texas

Date published: Sep 19, 2021

Citations

CIVIL 3:21-CV-1248-G-BK (N.D. Tex. Sep. 19, 2021)