Jones v. Jones et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JORDAN ALEXANDER JONES,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
§
v. §
§ No. 3:25-cv-03140-K-BT
MICHAEL JONES, SR., and THE
STATE OF TEXAS,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this pro se civil action
was referred to the United States magistrate judge for case management, including
the entry of findings and a recommended disposition where appropriate. Upon
review of the relevant pleadings and applicable law, the Plaintiff’s claims should be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order.
Background
On November 19, 2025, the Court issued a deficiency order, which required
Plaintiff to either pay the $405.00 filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. ECF No. 4. That Order expressly noted that “failure to comply
with this Order may result in the dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(b).” Id. Plaintiff was given until December 19, 2025, to
comply. However, to date, Plaintiff has failed to submit an application to
proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $405.00 filing fee.
Case 3:25-cv-03140-K-BT Document 5 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

Legal Standard and Analysis
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)). And 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))).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee or move for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis despite Court order. Thus, because Plaintiff has failed to timely
comply with this Court’s deficiency order, this case may be dismissed for failure to
comply with a Court order and for lack of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Recommendation
For all these reasons, this action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order and for want of prosecution.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Case 3:25-cv-03140-K-BT Document 5 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

SO RECOMMENDED on January 27, 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). An objection
must identify the specific 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 Servs. Auto. 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-03140-K-BT Document 5 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>