De La Cruz Mora et al v. Warden, Prairieland Detention Center

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
LUIS ALBERTO DE LA CRUZ
MORA,
§
§
Petitioner, §
§
v. § No. 3:26-cv-312-E (BT)
§
WARDEN, PRARIELAND
DETENTION CENTER,
§
§
§
Respondent. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Alien detainee Luis Alberto De La Cruz Mora filed a pro se habeas
application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 through a purported “next friend,” Melissa
Gonzalez Olivera, challenging his immigration detention. Petition (ECF No. 1). But
the petition was not filed on the correct form, and Olivera did not make the
showing required to file a petition on Petitioner’s behalf under 28 U.S.C. § 2242
and Supreme Court Precedent. So the Court issued an order and notice of
deficiency (NOD) requiring (1) Olivera to justify her “next friend” status or for
Petitioner to refile the petition in his own name, and (2) for an amended petition
to be filed on the Court-approved form. NOD at 2 (ECF No. 14). The Court gave
Petitioner until February 19, 2026, to comply with the NOD and supplied the
habeas form necessary for compliance. Id. at 2-3. The Court also warned Petitioner
that his failure to comply might result in the dismissal of this case under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Id. at 2.
Case 3:26-cv-00312-E-BT Document 25 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2
Petitioner subsequently filed an amended petition in his own name, but it is
still not filed on the correct, Court-approved form for § 2241 petitions, and his
deadline to comply with the NOD has passed. See Amended Pet. (ECF No. 15).
Further, documents sent to Petitioner at his detention facility have been returned
as undeliverable (ECF No. 23), and Petitioner has not provided an updated address
despite instructions to do so in the standard instructions that the Court sends to
pro se litigants. See Instructions to a Prisoner Pro Se Plaintiff (ECF No. 13).
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 [under Rule 41(b)] 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., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co.,
370 U.S. 626 (1962)). The Court’s authority under Rule 41(b) is not diluted by a
party proceeding pro se, as “[t]he right to self-representation does not exempt a
party from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.”
Wright v. LBA Hosp., 754 F. App’x 298, 300 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (quoting
Hulsey v. Texas, 929 F.2d 168, 171 (5th Cir. 1991) (quoting, in turn, Birl v. Estelle,
660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. Nov. 1981))).
Petitioner’s failures to file a habeas application on the Court’s approved form
for filing petitions and to update his address have stalled this case and indicate an
unwillingness to prosecute. Thus, the District Judge should dismiss Petitioner’s
Case 3:26-cv-00312-E-BT Document 25 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3
case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to follow Court orders.
See, e.g., Wildhaber v. United States, 2020 WL 2544021, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 20,
2020) (“Because [plaintiff] failed to comply with the orders that he pay the filing
fee or file an IFP application with a certificate of inmate trust account, and has not
otherwise responded to it, this case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute or
follow an order of the court.”), rec. accepted 2020 WL 2542735 (N.D. Tex. May 19,
2020); Texas v. Hill, 2020 WL 5913669, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2020) (“The
petitioner failed to comply with the orders that he file his § 2241 petition on the
appropriate form and either pay the filing fee or submit an IFP application despite
a warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal of the case. The case should
therefore be dismissed under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or follow court
orders.”), rec. accepted 2020 WL 5912417 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2020); Lewis v.
Hardy, 248 F. App’x 589, 593 n.1 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (noting that “the
failure of a pro se litigant to notify the district court of an address change may be
considered by the district court as an additional cause for dismissal for failure to
prosecute.”).
Recommendation
The District Judge should dismiss Petitioner’s case without prejudice
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to
obey Court orders.
SO RECOMMENDED.
Case 3:26-cv-00312-E-BT Document 25 Filed 04/09/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

4
April 9, 2026.
____________________________
HON R. RUTHERFORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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 specific finding or recommendation to which
objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify 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 Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
Case 3:26-cv-00312-E-BT Document 25 Filed 04/09/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>