David v. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
EDMAR DAVID, §
Petitioner, §
§
V. § Case No. 3:25-CV-00222-N-BT
§
U. S. IMMIGRATION AND §
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, §
Respondent. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pro se petitioner Edmar David seeks federal habeas relief under the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order
3, the District Court automatically referred this case to the undersigned United
States magistrate judge for findings, conclusions, and a recommendation. Upon
review, the Court should DENY the Petitioner’s request and DISMISS this case
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I.
On January 30, 2025, the Court issued a deficiency order, which required
Petitioner to file a “memorandum with additional specific facts about his claims or
another habeas petition containing such facts” and to either pay the $5.00 filing
fee or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 4. See N.D.
Tex. Misc. Ord. 14 (requiring motions to proceed in forma pauperis on the court-
approved form); 28 U.S.C. § 1914 (requiring $5.00 filing fee for writs of habeas
corpus). The deadline for Petitioner’s response was February 28, 2025.
Case 3:25-cv-00222-N-BT Document 5 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
On February 12, 2025, Petitioner paid the required $5.00 filing fee but failed
to file the memorandum alleging specific facts for the Court to evaluate his claims.
As of the date of this recommendation, Petitioner has not complied with this
portion of the Court’s order, nor has he sought an extension of time to do so.
Without the required factual memorandum, the Court cannot meaningfully
review the petition or determine whether Petitioner is entitled to relief under
§ 2241. Because the case cannot proceed in the absence of this information,
dismissal is warranted for failure to comply with a court order under Rule 41(b).
II.
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 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, Petitioner was instructed to submit additional factual allegations
essential to his petition and was given ample time to do so. Despite partial
compliance with the deficiency order by paying the filing fee, Petitioner has yet to
provide the required memorandum or otherwise communicate with the Court
regarding his noncompliance. Under these circumstances, dismissal without
Case 3:25-cv-00222-N-BT Document 5 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
prejudice is appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (an involuntary dismissal
“operates as an adjudication on the merits,” unless otherwise specified).
Accordingly, this action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a Court order.
SO RECOMMENDED.
January 7, 2026.
____________________________
REBECCA RUTHERFORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation shall 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). To be specific,
an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which
objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify 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 Services
Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
Case 3:25-cv-00222-N-BT Document 5 Filed 01/07/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>