Ramirez et al v. Garland et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
EUBERTO JOSE GIORDANI 	§
RAMIREZ, 	§
A# 244171663, 	§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:25-CV-3300-S-BW
§
MERRICK GARLAND, et al., 	§
Respondents. 	§ 	Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the Court should DISMISS
this habeas action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for
failure to prosecute or follow orders of the Court.
I. BACKGROUND
On December 2, 2025, the Court received a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed and signed by Angellys Difrisco Flores as
“next friend” and on behalf of Petitioner Euberto Jose Giordani Ramirez, an
immigration detainee at the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas. (See
Dkt. No. 3.) On December 4, 2025, the Court entered a Notice of Deficiency and
Order informing Ramirez and Flores that Flores, a non-lawyer, had not established
the propriety of “next friend” status under 28 U.S.C. § 2242, and she therefore could
not represent Ramirez in this habeas action absent such a showing. (See Dkt. No. 4
1 By Special Order No. 3-251, this habeas case has been automatically referred for
full case management.
Case 3:25-cv-03300-S-BW Document 5 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2
at 1-2.) It further notified Ramirez that he could pursue habeas relief through
licensed counsel or on his own behalf by filing an appropriate form § 2241 petition
under his own signature; he also would be required to either pay the $5 filing fee for
actions under § 2241 or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
with the required certificate of inmate trust account (“CTA”) or comparable form,
such as a resident account summary. (See id. at 2.)
The December 4 order directed Ramirez to complete and return the
appropriate form § 2241 habeas petition and either pay the $5 filing fee for or submit
an IFP application within 30 days if he wished to proceed with this habeas action on
his own behalf. (See id.) With the order, the Court sent Ramirez the appropriate
forms for filing a § 2241 habeas petition and an IFP application with a CTA. (See
Dkt. Nos. 4-1, 4-2.) The order also directed Ramirez to immediately notify the
Court of any change of address and warned him that failure to comply could result in
the dismissal of his case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (See Dkt. No.
4 at 2.)
Over three weeks have passed since the Court’s deadline expired, and Ramirez
still has not filed a § 2241 petition on the appropriate form under his own signature,
paid the filing fee, or filed an IFP application. Further, it appears from available
records that Ramirez is no longer in immigration custody. See ICE Online Detainee
Locator System, https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/search (last visited Jan. 30, 2026).
Ramirez has not updated his address or taken any other action manifesting an intent
to proceed in this case.
Case 3:25-cv-03300-S-BW Document 5 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3
II. INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “authorizes the district
court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or comply with [a
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure or] a court order.” Griggs v. S.G.E. Mgmt., L.L.C.,
905 F.3d 835, 844 (5th Cir. 2018). This authority flows from a court’s inherent
power to control its docket, prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases,
and avoid congested court calendars. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31
(1962). Further, a court’s authority under Rule 41(b) is not diluted merely because a
party proceeds pro se, as “[t]he right of self-representation does not exempt a party
from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” Wright v.
LBA Hospitality, 754 F. App’x 298, 300 (5th Cir. 2019).
Here, Ramirez has failed to comply with the Court’s December 4 order to file
a § 2241 habeas petition on the appropriate form under his own signature, to either
pay the $5 filing fee or file an IFP application with a CTA, and to notify the Court of
any change of address, despite a warning that failure to comply could result in the
dismissal of his petition. By not complying with the Court’s December 4 order,
Ramirez prevents this action from proceeding and has failed to prosecute this
lawsuit. Accordingly, the Court should exercise its inherent power to prevent undue
delays in the disposition of pending cases and dismiss this action without prejudice
under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or follow court orders.
Case 3:25-cv-03300-S-BW Document 5 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

4
III. RECOMMENDATION
The Court should DISMISS this habeas action without prejudice under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the
Court.
SO RECOMMENDED on February 2, 2026.
____________________________________
BRIAN McKAY
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 finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, state the basis for the objection, and indicate 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 Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415,
1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(extending the time to file objections to 14 days).
Case 3:25-cv-03300-S-BW Document 5 Filed 02/02/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>