Barrera v. City of Irving et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MARIBEL BARRERA, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § No. 3:25-cv-3160-N-BN
§
CITY OF IRVING, ET AL., §
§
Defendants. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Maribel Barrera filed this pro se action on November 18, 2025. See generally
Compl. (ECF No. 3). But Barrera (1) filed her complaint in Spanish without a
certified English translation; and (2) submitted an incomplete motion to proceed
in forma pauperis (IFP) (ECF No. 4). See First NOD at 1–2 (ECF No. 6).
On November 21, 2025, the Court ordered Barrera to address these
deficiencies by December 22, 2025. Id. at 1, 3–4. Barrera subsequently filed an
amended IFP motion (ECF No. 7) and additional attachments to support her
complaint (ECF No. 8). On December 16, 2025, the Court notified Barrera that
these additional attachments did not comply with the Court’s November 21, 2025
Order—requiring her to file an amended complaint in English or with an English
translation—and reminded her of the compliance deadline. See Sec. NOD (ECF No.
9).
Case 3:25-cv-03160-N-BT Document 12 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
Barrera’s deadline for compliance with the NOD has passed, but she still has
not filed an amended complaint in English or with an English translation.
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)).
Barrera’s failure to file an amended complaint in English or with an English
translation has prevented this action from proceeding. Accordingly, the Court
should dismiss Barrera’s case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure
to follow Court orders. See, e.g., Barrera v. Rovinzon, 2025 WL 1171244, at *2
(N.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2025), rec. adopted, 2025 WL 1170322 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2025)
(dismissing plaintiff’s action, in part, because plaintiff failed to comply with a court
order requiring her to file an amended complaint in English or with an English
translation).
Case 3:25-cv-03160-N-BT Document 12 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
Recommendation
The Court should dismiss Barrera’s case without prejudice
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to
obey Court orders.
SO RECOMMENDED.
February 18, 2026.
____________________________
REBECCA 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 3:25-cv-03160-N-BT Document 12 Filed 02/18/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>