Ramos v. Corpus Christi Independent School District et al

1 / 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
ADRIAN RAMOS, §
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 2:26-CV-00143
CORPUS CHRISTI INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Adrian Ramos, proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) At the time he filed this action, Plaintiff submitted an application
to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.) That handwritten application stated merely that he
could not afford the filing fee. Id. The Court therefore ordered Plaintiff on June 2, 2026 to
submit additional financial information and sent him the appropriate form. (Doc. No. 8.) The
Court ordered Plaintiff to submit the financial information not later than June 12, 2026. Id.
Plaintiff failed to respond. On June 16, 2026, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to
show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to provide the required financial
information. (Doc. No. 9.) Plaintiff was ordered to provide the information not later than June
26, 2026. Id. The order warned Plaintiff that his lawsuit could be dismissed if he did not
comply. Id. at 2. Plaintiff again failed to respond.
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
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 30, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:26-cv-00143 Document 10 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2 / 2
defendant.”). To date, Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements to pursue his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
case. The Court has advised Plaintiff that this action could be dismissed if he failed to comply
with the order to provide the financial information. (Doc. No. 8, p. 2.) Plaintiff has repeatedly
failed to follow court orders by either paying the filing fee or submitting the required information
in support of an application to proceed in forma pauperis. For these reasons, the undersigned
finds that the dismissal of this case is appropriate. The district court should DISMISS Plaintiff’s
lawsuit without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The district court
should also DENY as moot Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2).
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).
SIGNED on June 30, 2026.
_____________________________
MITCHEL NEUROCK
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:26-cv-00143 Document 10 Filed 06/30/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2