Rathod v. Warden of the Port Isabel Detention Center

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
MAHENDRASHINGH R., 1 	§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:26-cv-293
§
WARDEN OF THE PORT ISABEL 	§
DETENTION CENTER 	§
Respondents. 	§
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DISMISS PETITIONER’S HABEAS PETITION
The filing of a civil action in federal court usually requires the payment of a statutory
filing fee and any applicable administrative fees. 28 U.S.C. §1914(a). On April 6, 2026, this
Court ordered the Petitioner to pay the filing fee of $5.00 for habeas corpus actions or file an
application to proceed in forma pauperis, without prepayment of fees, by no later than April
26, 2026. In said order, the Court warned the Petitioner that failure to comply may result in
this Court’s recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b).
No payment nor motion to proceed in forma pauperis has been received. Furthermore,
it appears Petitioner may no longer be in the facility from which he originally filed his case.
See Dkt. Nos. 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16. Petitioner has not appraised this Court of any change of
address, of which he is required, to which direct his legal filings. 	Accordingly, it is
recommended that the Court (1) DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff’s action for failure to
comply with a court order pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); and (2) DIRECT the
Clerk of Court to close the case.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of this
1 Due to significant privacy concerns in immigration cases and noting that judicial opinions are not subject
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, any opinion, order, judgment, or other disposition in this case will
refer to the petitioner only by first name and last initial.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 21, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:26-cv-00293 Document 17 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections, if any, with the United
States District Judge assigned to the instant case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When filing an
objection, a party must object to specific facts or legal findings in this Report and
Recommendation. The District Judge is not required to consider frivolous, conclusive, or
general objections. Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir.
1987).
If any party fails to timely object to any factual or legal findings in this Report and
Recommendation, the District Judge is not required to conduct a de novo review of the record
before adopting these findings. If the District Judge chooses to adopt such findings without
conducting a de novo review of the record, the parties may not attack those findings on
appeal, except on the grounds of plain error. Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., L.L.C.,
875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017).
Signed on July 21, 2026.
Karen Betancourt
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00293 Document 17 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2