Reveron Cornejo v. Frink

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
KELLYS YOSSANY REVERON
CORNEJO,
Petitioner,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-cv-5326
WARDEN MARTIN FRINK,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On December 19, 2025, the Court entered an order of non-compliance
regarding Kellys Yossany Reveron Cornejo’s (“Petitioner”) failure to pay the
$5.00 filing fee or provide an application to proceed in forma pauperis as
directed. (ECF No. 7). In the December 19 Order, the Court warned Petitioner
that failure to comply may result in a recommendation that this case be
dismissed. 	(Id. 	at 	2). 	As 	of 	the 	date 	of 	this 	memorandum 	and
recommendation, Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 filing fee or moved to
proceed in forma pauperis. 	As such, the Court RECOMMENDS this case be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I. 	Background
On November 6, 2025, Petitioner filed a Petition requesting habeas
corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1). On November 7, 2025, the
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 27, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05326 Document 8 Filed 01/27/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
Court issued a notice of deficient pleading. (ECF No. 5). The notice instructed
Petitioner to pay the $5.00 filing fee or provide an application to proceed in
forma pauperis within 30 days. (Id.). The notice warned Petitioner that failure
to comply could result in this case being dismissed for want of prosecution
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(b). (Id.). Petitioner failed to
comply within the 30 days.
On December 19, 2025, the Court issued an Order of Non-Compliance
(ECF No. 7). In the Order, the Court ordered Petitioner to pay the $5.00 filing
fee or provide an application to proceed in forma pauperis by January 9, 2026.
(Id. at 2). The Court warned Petitioner that failure to comply could result in a
recommendation for dismissal. (Id.). Despite this order and extensions of time,
Petitioner has failed to comply by the deadline.
II. 	Discussion
Rule 41(b) 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. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v.
Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)).
Case 4:25-cv-05326 Document 8 Filed 01/27/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
Here, because Petitioner has failed to pay the filing fee and failed to
comply with a court order, the Court recommends dismissal of this action for
failure to prosecute. 	Martin v. Pearson, 405 F. App’x 859, 860 (5th Cir. 2010)
(affirming the dismissal of a § 2241 habeas action where the petitioner failed
to comply with the court’s orders by refusing to pay the required filling fee); see
also Greathouse v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 379 F. App’x 403, 404 (5th Cir.
2010) (affirming district court’s dismissal of a civil rights action where the
petitioner failed to comply with the court’s order to pay filling fee).
Further, Petitioner has failed to comply with the Court’s orders by not
alternatively moving for in forma pauperis status as directed. 	See Gonzalez-
Davila v. Farley, No. 7:18-cv-1857, 2018 WL 6919477, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 10,
2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 7:18-cv-1857, 2019 WL 78936
(S.D. Tex. Jan. 2, 2019) (dismissing for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b)
because Petitioner failed to comply with a court order directing him either to
pay the filing fee or submit a request to proceed in forma pauperis); Garcia v.
Davis, No. 18-cv-0986, 2018 WL 6251401, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 9, 2018), report
and recommendation adopted, No. 18-cv-0986, 2018 WL 6243304 (S.D. Tex.
Nov. 29, 2018) (same).
Case 4:25-cv-05326 Document 8 Filed 01/27/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
III. 	Conclusion
Based 	on 	the 	foregoing, 	the 	Court 	RECOMMENDS 	this 	case 	be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The Clerk shall send copies of this Memorandum and Recommendation
to the respective parties who have fourteen days from the receipt thereof to file
written objections thereto pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)
and General Order 2002-13. Failure to file written objections within the time
period mentioned shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual
findings and legal conclusions on appeal.
SIGNED in Houston, Texas on January 27, 2026.
______________________________
Richard W. Bennett
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-05326 Document 8 Filed 01/27/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4