Garcia v. Unknown Defendants

1 / 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
RODOLFO GARCIA,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00234
UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock for pre-
trial management, but with Judge Neurock’s consent and in accordance with Special Order C-
2023-11, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby enters this memorandum and
recommendation.
Plaintiff Rodolfo Garcia, proceeding pro se, has filed this prisoner civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) On August 28, 2025, the Clerk issued a Notice of
Deficient Pleading, notifying Plaintiff that within 30 days he must:
Provide the complete names of all defendants, or as much of the names as are
known, and any identifying information (such as gender, race, approximate age),
and a complete address for each.
Complete the attached form(s) and provide the original(s) to the court.
1 Special Order C-2023-1 is a standing order concerning civil matters referred to Magistrate Judges in this Division.
The order allows Magistrate Judges to assist each other on any referred matter by agreement, including entering
orders, notices, recommendations, and presiding over judicial proceedings.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 10, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:25-cv-00234 Document 11 Filed 11/10/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2 / 3
(Doc. No. 6.) The form that was attached was the Court’s standard form for a prisoner civil
rights complaint. (Doc. No. 6-1.) Rather than complying with the Court’s order, however,
Plaintiff instead submitted a rambling handwritten motion for preliminary injunction with a
number of attachments. (Doc. Nos. 7, 7-1.) He did not comply with the Court’s order to
complete the § 1983 form.
The Court then issued a show-cause order, directing Plaintiff to show cause on or before
October 27, 2025, why his lawsuit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. (Doc. No.
9.) The Court advised Plaintiff that he could comply with the show-cause order by timely
completing the form for a prisoner’s civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, following all
of the instructions on that form, and in completing that form providing the complete names of all
defendants or as much of the names as are known, and any identifying information (such as
gender, race, approximate age), and a complete address for each. Id. at 2. The Court also
warned Plaintiff that failing to comply with the show-cause order would result in a
recommendation of dismissal of his lawsuit. Id. Plaintiff has not responded to the show-cause
order. Instead, he submitted another rambling handwritten letter dated October 26, repeating
many of the same allegations but providing none of the information directed by the Court. (Doc.
No. 10.)
A district court may dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (“The
district court also has the inherent authority to dismiss an action sua sponte, without motion by a
defendant.”). Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s two orders to complete the § 1983 form
and to properly identify the defendants, and he has been warned that his failure to comply with
the Court’s orders could result in the dismissal of this action. For these reasons, dismissal of
Case 2:25-cv-00234 Document 11 Filed 11/10/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3 / 3
Plaintiff’s case is appropriate. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s case be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Relatedly, the district court should DENY as moot Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction
(Doc. No. 7).
The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to each
party or counsel. Within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Memorandum and
Recommendation, any party may file with the Clerk and serve on the United States Magistrate
Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),
and General Order No. 2002-13, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
A failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within 14 days after being
served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on
appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions that are accepted by the
district court. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996)
(en banc).
Respectfully submitted on November 10, 2025.
_______________________________
Jason B. Libby
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00234 Document 11 Filed 11/10/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 3