Dorsey v. United States of America

1 / 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
KEITH DEWAYNE DORSEY
Plaintiff
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00304
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS
CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Petitioner filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on October 30, 2025. (D.E.
1). An Order for Transfer was entered on November 10, 2025 from the Northern District
of Texas. (D.E. 5). On November 17, 2025, the U.S. District Clerk notified Petitioner his
pleading was deficient for failure to pay the filing fee or, alternatively, for failing to file an
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.E. 9). Petitioner was directed to
either pay the filing fee or submit the required in forma pauperis documents no later than
December 17, 2025, and was warned that failure to comply may result in dismissal for want
of prosecution. (D.E. 9); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A prisoner who is seeking to proceed in
forma pauperis must file “a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or
institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the
filing of the complaint....” along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (emphasis added). Petitioner failed to comply. Therefore, on
December 22, 2025, the undersigned ordered Petitioner to either remit the required filing
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 09, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:25-cv-00304 Document 16 Filed 02/09/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2 / 4
fee or to submit to the Court an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a
certified copy of his inmate trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for
the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint on or before January
15, 2026. (D.E. 11). Petitioner was again warned that failure to comply may result in
dismissal of this case for want of prosecution. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126
(5th Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
On January 8, 2026, Petitioner filed a “Motion to Clarify/Verify,” docketed as a
response to the undersigned’s deficiency order. (D.E. 13). Petitioner stated he requested
the withdrawal of the filing fee from his inmate account to be submitted to the Northern
District of Texas, enclosing a copy of his request dated November 13, 2025 which does not
contain a case number. However, on January 13, 2026, Petitioner was advised no Court
has received his filing fee for this case. Therefore, the undersigned granted Petitioner one,
final extension of time to comply, again ordering Petitioner to either remit the required
filing fee or to submit to the Court an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and a certified copy of his inmate trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent)
for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint on or before
February 3, 2026. Petitioner was again warned that failure to comply may result in
dismissal of this case for want of prosecution. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126
(5th Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Petitioner was further advised it was unlikely further
extensions would be granted. To date, Petitioner has failed to comply.
Case 2:25-cv-00304 Document 16 Filed 02/09/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3 / 4
Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended that Petitioner’s case be DISMISSED
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); see also Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir.
1997) (holding district courts have the power to sua sponte dismiss a cause of action for
failure to prosecute).
ORDERED on February 9, 2026.
_______________________________
Jason B. Libby
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00304 Document 16 Filed 02/09/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4 / 4
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to
each party or counsel. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of
the Memorandum and Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the
United States Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(c); Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and Article IV, General
Order No. 2002-13, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendations in a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation within
FOURTEEN (14) 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. Douglass v. United Servs.
Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Case 2:25-cv-00304 Document 16 Filed 02/09/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4