Torres v. Guerrero

1/4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
SAMUEL ADAM TORRES, 	§
§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§
§ 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-088
ERIC GUERRERO, Director,
TDCJ – Correctional Institutions
Division,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Petitioner Samuel Adam Torres’s “Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241” (Torres’s “§ 2241 Petition”)1. Dkt. No. 1; See 1:25-cv-
00116. For the reasons discussed herein, it is recommended that the Court: (1) DISMISS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE Torres’s § 2241 Petition; and (2) DIRECT the Clerk of Court
to CLOSE this case.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 28, 2025, Petitioner Samuel Adam Torres initially filed his “Petition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody” (“§ 2254
Petition”) without paying the full filing fee. Dkt. No. 1. On May 14, 2025, the Court notified
Torres that it construed his § 2254 Petition as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
1 On June 12, 2025, the Court found that “Torres appeared to file his § 2241 Petition in response to the
Court’s May 14 order in [Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-088].” Dkt. No. 12. As further discussed herein, the Court
ordered that Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-116 be consolidated into Civil Action No. 25-cv-088. Id.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 21, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:25-cv-00088 Document 26 Filed 01/21/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2/4
to 28 U.S. C. § 2241; the Court further pointed certain deficiencies in Torres’s pleading
and ordered him to pay the full filing fee or submit an in forma pauperis application. Dkt.
No. 9. Torres later filed a “Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241”
(Torres’s “§ 2241 Petition”) [1:25-cv-116, Dkt. No. 1] docketed under 1:25-cv-116, Torres
v. TDJC et al (“25-116”), which the Court consolidated into the above-referenced civil
action. Dkt. No. 12.
On July 18, 2025, the Court ordered Torres to “pay the full filing fee applicable to
his cause of action or submit a certified trust fund account statement for the six-month
period immediately preceding the filing of his § 2241 Petition no later than September 16,
2025.” Dkt. No. 21 at 2 (emphasis removed). On October 20, 2025, the Court again
ordered Torres to comply with the Court’s July 18 Order [Dkt. No. 21] by November 7,
2025, and notified Torres that his Ҥ 2241 Petition can, and in all likelihood will, be subject
to dismissal under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute or
comply with a court order.” Dkt. No. 23 at 2.
The deadline has passed, and Torres has failed to comply with the Court’s October
20 Notice and Order [Dkt. No. 23] or show cause as to why he is unable to comply.
Further, Torres has not prosecuted his § 2241 Petition since filing his “Motion to Reopen
for Additional Evidence” (“Motion to Reopen”) [Dkt. No. 20] on July 17, 2025.
Case 1:25-cv-00088 Document 26 Filed 01/21/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3/4
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
A. 	Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (“Rule 41(b)”) provides for dismissal for
failure to prosecute and comply with a court’s orders. Under Rule 41(b), “[i]f the plaintiff
fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to
dismiss the action or any claim against it.” F ED. R. CIV . P. 41(b). Further, district courts
may, for appropriate reasons, dismiss cases sua sponte when a plaintiff fails to prosecute
his case. Carver v. Atwood, 18 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2021) (internal citation omitted). 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). The dismissal may be with or without prejudice.
Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878, 879–80 (5th Cir. 1996).
III. DISCUSSION
Here, Torres has failed to prosecute this case and comply with the Court’s October
20 Notice and Order [Dkt. No. 23]. Critically, Torres has failed to prosecute his case since
filing his Motion to Reopen [Dkt. No. 20] over six months ago. Torres has also failed to:
(1) show cause as to why he has not paid the full filing fee; or (2) submit a certified trust
fund account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his
§ 2241 Petition. The Court, then, finds that this action should be dismissed for failure to
prosecute under Rule 41(b).
Case 1:25-cv-00088 Document 26 Filed 01/21/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4/4
IV. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Court: (1) DISMISS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE Torres’s § 2241 Petition; and (2) DIRECT the Clerk of Court
to CLOSE this case.
V. NOTICE TO PARTIES
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions,
and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendations within
fourteen 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 accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served
with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United
Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
SIGNED on this 21st day of January, 2026, at Brownsville, Texas.
____________________________
Ignacio Torteya, III
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00088 Document 26 Filed 01/21/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4