Linares v. Couey

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
LARRY T. LINARES, §
#25030294, §
PLAINTIFF, §
§
V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:25-CV-3573-G-BK
§
JILL COUEY, §
DEFENDANT. §
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 issuance of findings
and a recommended disposition when appropriate. Upon review, this action should be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order and for want
of prosecution.
On January 12, 2026, the Court issued a deficiency order advising Plaintiff that if he
seeks to proceed with this civil action, he must file a complaint on the court-approved form and
pay the $405.00 filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 5. See also
N.D. Tex. Misc. Ord. 14 (requiring inmates to file civil rights complaints and motions to proceed
in forma pauperis on the court-approved forms). The deadline for Plaintiff’s response was
February 11, 2026. However, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s deficiency order, nor
has he sought an extension of time to do so.
At best the Court can glean, Plaintiff has filed pleadings requesting an investigation into a
“hate crime lawsuit” pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. See
Case 3:25-cv-03573-G-BK Document 8 Filed 02/21/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
Linares v. TDCJ Guards, et al., No. 1:25-cv-439 (E.D. Tex., Beaumont Div.). Doc. 6; Doc. 7. It
also appears he has sought relief in other courts. In addition to failing to comply with the
deficiency order, Plaintiff’s requests do not indicate his intent to proceed with civil litigation in
this Court.
Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may 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 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. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)).
Here, Plaintiff has been given ample opportunity to respond to the Court’s deficiency
order. He has impliedly refused or declined to do so. Therefore, this action should be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order and for lack of
prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) (an involuntary dismissal “operates as an adjudication on
the merits,” unless otherwise specified).
SO RECOMMENDED on February 21, 2026.
Case 3:25-cv-03573-G-BK Document 8 Filed 02/21/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
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 finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, the basis for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation 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 object
to 14 days).
Case 3:25-cv-03573-G-BK Document 8 Filed 02/21/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>