Smith v. Randall County Sheriff

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMARILLO DIVISION
KENT WAYNE SMITH, §
§
Petitioner, §
§
v. § 2:26-CV-61-Z-BR
§
RANDALL COUNTY SHERIFF, §
§
Respondent. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
On March 25, 2026, Plaintiff Kent Wayne Smith., acting pro se and while a prisoner, filed
a Complaint regarding unlawful detention pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF 3).
On March 26, 2026, the Court issued a Deficiency Order, ordering Smith to state his
complaint on the proper form, and to either pay the $5 filing fee or submit within 30 days an
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis supported by an inmate trust account certificate. (ECF
4). The Order was sent to Smith at the Randall County Jail (his address of record) but was returned
on April 7, 2026. (ECF 5). Smith has neither complied with the Deficiency Order nor updated his
address. The Local Rules of the Northern District of Texas state that parties must promptly notify
the Court of any changes in address. See LR 83.13, 83.14. Smith has failed to do so.
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. 1988); see FED. R. CIV. P. 41. “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., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir.
Case 2:26-cv-00061-Z-BR Document 6 Filed 04/08/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
1985) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S. Ct. 1386 (1962)).
A pro se litigant is not exempt from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and
substantive law. Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1981); Edwards v. Harris County
Sheriff's Office, 864 F. Supp. 633, 637 (S.D. Tex. 1994). A pro se litigant who fails to comply with
procedural rules has the burden of establishing excusable neglect, which is a strict standard
requiring proof of more than mere ignorance. Kersh v. Derozier, 851 F.2d 1509, 1512 (5th
Cir.1988); Birl, 660 F.2d at 593.
Dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b) is appropriate here. Smith’s failure to comply
with the Court’s Deficiency Order and Local Rules appears to reflect an intent to abandon this
lawsuit rather than to create purposeful delay. Regardless, this case cannot proceed without his
compliance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge that the Complaint
filed by Kent Wayne Smith (ECF 3) be DISMISSED without prejudice unless he fully complies
with the Deficiency Order before the deadline for filing objections to this FCR.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE
The United States District Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Findings, Conclusions
and Recommendation to each party by the most efficient means available.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
ENTERED April 8, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-00061-Z-BR Document 6 Filed 04/08/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
* NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT *
Any party may object to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. In the
event parties wish to object, they are hereby NOTIFIED that the deadline for filing objections is
fourteen (14) days from the date of filing as indicated by the “entered” date directly above the
signature line. Service is complete upon mailing, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), or transmission by
electronic means, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E). Any objections must be filed on or before the
fourteenth (14th) day after this recommendation is filed as indicated by the “entered” date. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
Any such objections shall be made in a written pleading entitled “Objections to the
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation.” Objecting parties shall file the written objections
with the United States District Clerk and serve a copy of such objections on all other parties. A
party’s failure to timely file written objections shall bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds
of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings, legal
conclusions, and recommendation set forth by the Magistrate Judge and accepted by the district
court. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc),
superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), as recognized in ACS Recovery
Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, 676 F.3d 512, 521 n.5 (5th Cir. 2012); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275,
276–77 (5th Cir. 1988).
Case 2:26-cv-00061-Z-BR Document 6 Filed 04/08/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>