Aragon v. Warden of FCI Seagoville

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
HENRY ARAGON, 	§
ID #16220-509, 	§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:25-CV-1981-X-BW
§
WARDEN OF FCI SEAGOVILLE 	§
SATELLITE CAMP, 	§
Respondent. 	§ 	Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner Henry Aragon, proceeding in this action pro se, has failed to
prosecute this action and follow court orders. The undersigned United States
magistrate judge recommends that, unless he comes into compliance during the 14-
day period within which he may file objections to this recommendation, the District
Judge should DISMISS this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Aragon initiation this action when, on July 30, 2025, the clerk received a
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Dkt. No. 3.) In
the petition, Aragon alleges that he is confined at FCI Seagoville in service of a
federal prison sentence. (Id. at 1.) Through the petition, Aragon seeks a court order
requiring the Bureau of Prisons to recalculate his prison sentence, consider him for
1 By Special Order No. 3-251, this habeas case has been automatically referred for
full case management.
Case 3:25-cv-01981-X-BW Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2
participation in the Residential Drug Abuse Program, and apply credits to his
sentence under the First Step Act. (Id. at 2.)2
On August 5, 2025, the undersigned noted Aragon’s failure to submit his
petition on the proper form and, thus, ordered him to complete, sign, and return the
§ 2241 form within 30 days. (Dkt. No. 6.) Aragon was provided a copy of the
standard form. (See id.) After his deadline passed and Aragon did not comply, the
undersigned provided him another opportunity to complete the form. On October
24, 2025, the undersigned again ordered Aragon to submit an amended petition on
the standard form for § 2241 petitions within 30 days. (Dkt. No. 7.) The clerk again
provided the standard form. (See id.) Aragon was warned that failure to do so may
would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b). Aragon’s extended deadline has long passed, and he has not submitted the
amended petition, nor has he filed anything in this action since the initiating
documents received on July 30.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) “authorizes the district court to dismiss an action sua
sponte for failure to prosecute or comply with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure or a
court order.” Smith v. Resurgent Capital Servs. LP, LLC, No. 3:24-CV-197-B-BN, 2024
WL 2278210, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 1, 2024) (internal quotation marks and brackets
omitted). “This authority ‘flows from the court’s inherent power to control its docket
2 The undersigned notes that the petition and accompanying motion to compel
application of sentence credits (Dkt. No. 4) do not bear indicia of having been filed by
Aragon. For example, they do not bear Aragon’s signature, nor do they show that the items
were mailed by Aragon to the clerk.
Case 3:25-cv-01981-X-BW Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3
and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.’” Id. at *2 (quoting
Boudin v. Graystone Inc. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985)); see also Link v.
Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962).
By failing to comply with the court orders requiring Aragon to submit a form
petition—and, thus, provide all the information required therein—he has precluded
this case from proceeding. In light of his failure to take a basic and necessary step to
prosecute the case, the undersigned determines that sanctions less than dismissal
would be futile. The undersigned therefore recommends that this action be
DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to
prosecute and follow orders of the court.
SO RECOMMENDED on January 2, 2026.
____________________________________
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-01981-X-BW Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

4
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). To be specific,
an objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, state the basis for the objection, and indicate the place in the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation where 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. See Douglass 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).
Case 3:25-cv-01981-X-BW Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>