Lopez v. Lopez et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
RAUL EDDIE LOPEZ, 	§
ID # 01145545, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:25-CV-1984-N-BW
§
ROSA LOPEZ, et al., 	§
Defendants. 	§ 	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 action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure
to prosecute or follow orders of the Court.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 29, 2025, the Court received correspondence from Raul Eddie Lopez,
a state prisoner, that was construed as a civil complaint. (See Dkt. No. 3.) On
August 4, 2025, the Court entered a Notice of Deficiency and Order requiring Lopez
to, within 30 days, complete and return a signed form civil complaint that complied
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and either pay the $405.00 filing fee or file
an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) with a completed and verified
certificate of inmate trust account (“CTA”) or comparable form, such as a resident
account summary. (See Dkt. No. 4.) With the order, the Court provided the
1 By Special Order No. 3-251, this pro se case has been automatically referred for full
case management.
Case 3:25-cv-01984-N-BW Document 7 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2
appropriate forms for filing a pro se civil action and an IFP application with a CTA.
(See Dkt. Nos. 4-1, 4-2.) The order also warned Lopez that failure to comply could
result in the dismissal of his action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (See
Dkt. No. 4 at 2.)
Following Lopez’s failure to timely complete and return the appropriate form
for filing a pro se civil action and to either pay the filing fee or submit an IFP
application by the Court’s deadline, the Court entered a Second Notice of Deficiency
and Order on October 24, 2025. (See Dkt. No. 6.) In that order, the Court extended
Lopez’s deadline to comply with the August 4 order to November 24, 2025, and
provided Lopez copies of the August 4 order and the appropriate forms for him to
complete. (See id.; Dkt. Nos. 6-1, 6-2.) The second order further warned Lopez that
this case would be subject to dismissal under Rule 41(b) if he failed to fully comply.
(Id.)
Well over three months have passed since the Court’s original deadline
expired, and over four weeks have now passed since the expiration of the Court’s
extended deadline. Lopez still has not filed his complaint on an appropriate form,
paid the filing fee or submitted an IFP application with CTA, or taken any action
manifesting an intent to proceed in this case.
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.,
Case 3:25-cv-01984-N-BW Document 7 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3
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).
Lopez has failed to comply with the Court’s August 4 and October 24 orders
to file a complaint that complies with Rule 8(a) on the appropriate form and to either
pay the filing fee or file an IFP application with CTA, despite warnings that failure to
do so could result in dismissal of the case. Nor has he filed anything else in this
case.2 By not complying with the Court’s August 4 and October 24 orders or
otherwise showing he intends to proceed with this case, Lopez prevents this action
from proceeding and has failed to prosecute his 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 and obey court orders.
2 The Court notes that the docket in this case indicates that Lopez’s address was
updated based on a notice of such change that he filed on September 16, 2025 in a separate
action pending in the Abilene Division of this District. See Lopez v. Saringer, No. 1:25-CV-
83-H, Dkt. No. 13 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2025). Lopez did not file a notice of change of
address in this action.
Case 3:25-cv-01984-N-BW Document 7 Filed 12/23/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

4
III. RECOMMENDATION
The Court should DISMISS this action without prejudice under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the Court.
SO RECOMMENDED on December 23, 2025.
____________________________________
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); F ED . R. C IV. 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-01984-N-BW Document 7 Filed 12/23/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>