Simpson et al v. Clay Cooley Nissan of Dallas LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
IESHA SIMPSON, et al., §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. § No. 3:26-cv-146-L (BT)
§
CLAY COOLEY NISSAN OF
DALLAS, LLC, et al.,
§
§
§
Defendants. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pro se plaintiffs Iesha Simpson and Latonia Wilson filed a civil complaint
against Clay Cooley Nissan of Dallas, LLC and Veros Credit LLC related to the
repossession of a vehicle purchased from Defendants. See generally Compl. (ECF
No. 3). Plaintiffs also seek an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO)
seeking the return or “impoundment” of the vehicle. See TRO at 1 (ECF No. 5). But
Plaintiffs (i) did not sign their complaint as required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure; and (ii) submitted an incomplete request to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP) (ECF No. 4).
On January 20, 2026, the Court issued an order and notice of deficiency
(NOD) ordering Plaintiffs to (i) file a properly signed amended complaint; and (ii)
either pay the filing fee or file separate IFP motions that answer all the Court’s
questions by February 9, 2026. NOD (ECF No. 6). The Court warned Plaintiffs that
their failure to comply could result in the dismissal of this action under Federal
Case 3:26-cv-00146-L-BT Document 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to follow court
orders. Id. The Court also supplied the form necessary to comply with the NOD.
Plaintiff’s deadline has passed, and they have not complied with the Court’s
Order.
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 [under Rule 41(b)] 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., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v.
Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)). And the Court’s authority under Rule
41(b) is not diluted by a party proceeding pro se, as “[t]he right to self-
representation does not exempt a party from compliance with relevant rules of
procedural and substantive law.” Wright v. LBA Hosp., 754 F. App’x 298, 300 (5th
Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (quoting Hulsey v. Texas, 929 F.2d 168, 171 (5th Cir. 1991)
(quoting, in turn, Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. Nov. 1981))).
This case cannot move forward unless Plaintiffs comply with the Court’s
Order. Their failure to do so indicates an unwillingness or inability to prosecute
this action and comply with the federal rules and court orders. Thus, the Court
should dismiss this case without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) unless Plaintiffs (i) file a properly signed amended complaint; and
Case 3:26-cv-00146-L-BT Document 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3
(ii) either pay the filing fee or file separate IFP motions that answer all of the
Court’s questions within the time period to object to this recommendation
(explained in more detail below) or by some other deadline established by the
Court.
RECOMMENDATION
Unless Plaintiffs (1) file a properly signed amended complaint; and (2) either
pay the filing fee or file separate IFP motions that answer all of the Court’s
questions within the time to file objections to this recommendation (explained
below), or by some other deadline established by the Court, the Court should
dismiss his case without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for want of
prosecution and for failure to follow Court orders.
SO RECOMMENDED.
February 11, 2026.
____________________________
REBECCA RUTHERFORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00146-L-BT Document 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

4
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 Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
Case 3:26-cv-00146-L-BT Document 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>