United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
CARRILLO RAMIREZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Special Order 3-251, this pro se habeas
case has been automatically referred for full case
management. Before the Court is the Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus, filed on December 6, 2018. (See
doc. 3.) Based on the relevant filings and applicable law,
the case should be DISMISSED for failure to
prosecute or follow orders of the court.
Blakely (Petitioner) filed a pro se action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against several law enforcement officials
alleging violation of his civil rights during a traffic stop
that occurred on March 14, 2015. See Blakely et al v.
Andrade et al., No. 3:17-CV-745-B (N.D. Tex.). As a
result of that stop, he was indicted by a grand jury for
assaulting a public servant on September 4, 2015. See
State of Tex. v. Quincy Blakely, No. F15-18020-M (194th
Dist. Ct., Dallas County, Tex. Apr. 9, 2015). His initial
trial was held on May 18, 2018, but resulted in a mistrial
after the jury was unable to reach a verdict. See
id. His new trial was set for December 10, 2018. See
December 6, 2018, it was recommended that the defendants'
motion to dismiss the civil lawsuit be granted in part and
denied in part, that the remaining claims be stayed pending
the outcome of the trial, and that Petitioner's motion
and claim for injunctive relief be denied based on the
Younger abstention doctrine. (See No.
3:17-CV-745-B, doc. 164). That same day, Petitioner filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus, a supporting affidavit,
and an emergency motion to stay his state court criminal
proceedings pending a ruling on his habeas petition.
(Id., docs. 161-63.)
order dated December 7, 2018, Petitioner's habeas claims
were severed from the civil rights action and opened as this
new habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Id.,
doc. 166.) The order also notified Petitioner that he had not
filed his § 2241 petition on the appropriate form for
that type of action, and he had not either paid the filing
fee for a habeas case under § 2241 or submitted a
request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
(See doc. 1.) He was ordered to complete and return
the enclosed form for actions filed under § 2241 within
thirty (30) days from the date of the order, and to either
pay the filing fee or submit an IFP motion. (Id.)
The order specifically notified Petitioner that failure to
comply could result in dismissal of his case. (Id.)
December 26, 2018, Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee, but
did not file his petition on the proper form. By order dated
December 27, 2018, he was notified that despite payment of
the fee, he was still required to comply with the December 7,
2018 order by filing his petition on the proper form within
30 days of that date. (See doc. 6.) The order
specifically notified Petitioner that failure to comply with
the order could result in dismissal of the case. (See
id.) Petitioner still failed to timely file his petition
on the proper form.
order dated January 8, 2019, Petitioner was again ordered to
file his § 2241 petition on the appropriate form within
14 days. (See doc. 7.) The order again specifically
notified him that failure to comply with the order could
result in dismissal of the case. (See id.) More than
14 days from the date of that order have passed, but
Petitioner still not filed his petition on the proper form or
filed anything else.
41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court
to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to
prosecute or follow orders of the court. McCullough v.
Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). This
authority flows from a court's inherent power to control
its docket, prevent undue delays in the disposition of
pending cases, and avoid congested court calendars. Link
v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962).
ample opportunity to file his § 2241 petition on the
appropriate form and fair notice that failure to do so could
result in the dismissal of the case, Petitioner has failed to
comply with three court orders, and he has not filed anything
else in the case. Because Petitioner has failed to follow
court orders or otherwise show that he intends to proceed
with this case, it should be dismissed under Rule 41(b) for
failure to prosecute or follow orders.
habeas case should be dismissed without prejudice under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute or follow court
orders, unless Petitioner files his § 2241 petition on
the appropriate form within the time for objecting to this
recommendation, or by some other deadline set by the Court.