Call v. Runnels County et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANGELO DIVISION
RUSSELL CALL,
Plaintiff,
v.
RUNNELS COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 6:25-CV-00030-H-BU
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Russell Call, proceeding pro se, brings this action against Runnels County,
Runnels County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Carl Squyres, and two unknown Deputies.
(collectively, “the Defendants”). The case is now before the Court due to Call’s failure to
comply with the Court’s Order Requiring Service, Dkt. No. 5, requiring him to properly
and timely serve the Defendants. For the reasons explained below, the undersigned
RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Call’s claims under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 41(b).
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Call filed this action on March 24, 2025, in the Northern District of Texas, Abilene
Division. Dkt. No. 1. Shortly after, the Court transferred the case to the appropriate San
Angelo Division, Dkt. No. 2, at which point Call’s claims were automatically referred to
the undersigned for pretrial management under Special Order 3-251.
On March 5, 2026—almost an entire year after Call filed this action—the Court
Case 6:25-cv-00030-H-BU Document 6 Filed 04/08/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID <pageID>

2
ordered Call to either (1) demonstrate to the Court that he has properly served the
Defendants, or (2) show good cause for why he has not served the Defendants thus far. Dkt.
No. 5. The Court gave Call a deadline of April 3, 2026. Id. Call has not responded. The
case has now been dormant for over a year since it was transferred to the undersigned.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Rule 6(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the time within which a
plaintiff must serve a defendant. That Rule provides in relevant part:
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the
court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the
action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made
within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure,
the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.
FED. R. CIV. P. 6(m) (emphasis added).
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to dismiss an
action sua sponte for failure to comply with court orders or for failure to prosecute.
Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 2016); McCullough
v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). This authority flows from a court’s
inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending
cases. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–31 (1962). A Rule 41(b) dismissal may
be with or without prejudice. Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878, 880 (5th Cir. 1996). A dismis-
sal with prejudice is appropriate only where a litigant’s acts or omissions are “the result of
purposeful delay or contumaciousness and the record reflects that the district court em-
ployed lesser sanctions before dismissing the action [with prejudice].” Id.
Case 6:25-cv-00030-H-BU Document 6 Filed 04/08/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID <pageID>

3
III. ANALYSIS
Call failed to serve the Defendants within 90 days after he filed his Complaint. The
Court then ordered Call to serve the Defendants within a specified time, which he failed to
do. At no time did Call show good cause for his failure to serve the Defendants. Thus, his
Complaint is subject to dismissal under Rule 4(m).
Additionally, the undersigned recommends dismissal under Rule 41(b) for two
interrelated reasons: (1) Call’s failure to prosecute his claim and (2) his failure to comply
with this Court’s Order Requiring Service. Starting with Call’s failure to prosecute his
claim, Call filed suit more than a year ago and has yet to serve the Defendants. This alone
warrants dismissal under Rule 41(b). See Veronica B. v. Comm’s of Soc. Sec. Admin., No.
3:19-cv-1341-S-BT, 2019 WL 5967847, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2019) (collecting cases),
report & rec. adopted, 2019 WL 5964486.
Dismissal is also warranted because of Call’s failure to comply with this Court’s
Order Requiring Service, which gave him until April 3, 2026, to demonstrate that he has
properly served the Defendants. That deadline has now expired without word from Call.
This, too, serves as a ground for dismissal under Rule 41(b). Veronica B., 2019 WL
5967847 at *2.
Still, the undersigned has no reason to believe that Call’s failures to prosecute or
show cause are the result of some improper motive. Thus, the undersigned recommends
that the Court dismiss Call’s claim without prejudice.
Case 6:25-cv-00030-H-BU Document 6 Filed 04/08/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID <pageID>

4
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons provided above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court
DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Call’s claims under Rules 4(m) and 41(b) for his
failure to timely serve the Defendants, prosecute his case, and comply with this Court’s
order.
V. RIGHT TO OBJECT
A copy of these Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations shall be served on
all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations must file specific written objections within
fourteen days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2). To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation
to which the objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in
the magistrate judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations 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)(en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).
Case 6:25-cv-00030-H-BU Document 6 Filed 04/08/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID <pageID>

5
ORDERED this 8th day of April 2026.
JOHN R. PARKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:25-cv-00030-H-BU Document 6 Filed 04/08/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID <pageID>