Fuller v. State Of Texas

- 1 -
No. 6:25-cv-00364
Joseph Dan Fuller,
Plaintiff,
v.
State of Texas et al.,
Defendants.
O R D E R
Plaintiff, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Jus-
tice proceeding pro se, brought this lawsuit alleging violations of
his constitutional rights. Doc. 1. He also moved to proceed in
forma pauperis. Doc. 2. The case was referred to a magistrate
judge, who noted deficiencies in plaintiff’s complaint, ordered
plaintiff to file an amended complaint, and provided guidance on
what plaintiff must do to remedy the original complaint’s defi-
ciencies. Doc. 6. The magistrate judge also directed plaintiff to
pay the full filing fee or provide an inmate trust account data or
summary sheet. Doc. 5. Plaintiff had 30 days to comply. Docs. 5,
6. He did not comply with the magistrate judge’s orders within
the time for doing so.
The magistrate judge therefore issued a report recommending
dismissal of this lawsuit. Doc. 11. The report explained that plain-
tiff failed to comply with court orders and that the only named
parties—the State of Texas and the Texas Department of Crimi-
nal Justice—are immune from suit for money damages except in
in limited circumstances not present here. Id. at 2–3. The report
recommended dismissal with prejudice as to the State of Texas
and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice but without preju-
dice as to any claims plaintiff might have against non-immune po-
tential defendants. Id. at 3. Plaintiff did not file written objections.
The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C.
Case 6:25-cv-00364-JCB-JDL Document 15 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
§ 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But when there have been
no timely objections to a report, “the court need only satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b), advisory committee’s notes to 1983 amendment.
Having reviewed the record, the court is satisfied that there is
no clear error. But that is not the end of the analysis. Although
plaintiff filed no written objections, nearly two months after re-
ceiving the deficiency orders, see Doc. 8, plaintiff filed an
amended complaint and new motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Docs. 13–14. The court notes, however, that “failure to comply
with an order of the court is grounds for dismissal with preju-
dice.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 489 (2000) (citing Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b)). Thus, notwithstanding Federal Rule of Civil Proce-
dure 15(a)(1)’s amendment deadlines, plaintiff’s failure to comply
with the magistrate judge’s orders is grounds for dismissal. That
is especially true considering that plaintiff has yet to file an inmate
trust account data or summary sheet or pay the filing fee. See Doc.
14.
Those problems aside, regardless of whether the court accepts
the amended complaint as the new operative complaint or con-
strues it as objections to the report, plaintiff’s suit should still be
dismissed. Plaintiff seeks money damages from the state of Texas
and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Doc. 13 at 3–4. He
acknowledges their immunity from suits for money damages un-
der the Eleventh Amendment. Id. at 8. Nonetheless, he interprets
the report as requiring him to “‘ask’ to sue them,” states that de-
fendants are not above the law, and asks the court to hold them
accountable. Id. It appears that plaintiff misunderstands the re-
port’s explanation of why sovereign immunity bars his suit. Plain-
tiff brought a civil rights lawsuit against defendants under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Docs. 1, 13. But as the report explained, § 1983 does
not waive defendants’ sovereign immunity. Doc. 11 at 2. And
plaintiff has not shown that Texas waived its immunity for this
kind of lawsuit. Docs. 11 at 2, 13 at 8. Therefore, his suit must be
Case 6:25-cv-00364-JCB-JDL Document 15 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 3 -
dismissed because it seeks monetary relief from defendants who
are immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2).
For the foregoing reasons, the court accepts the report’s find-
ings and recommendations. All claims in this action are dismissed.
The dismissal is with prejudice as to any claims against the state
of Texas or the Texas Department of Criminal Justice but without
prejudice as to any claims plaintiff might have against a non-im-
mune potential defendant. Any pending motions are denied as
moot.
So ordered by the court on February 23, 2026.
J. CAM PB EL L BA RK ER
United States District Judge
Case 6:25-cv-00364-JCB-JDL Document 15 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>