Cabrera et al v. Immigration Customs Enforcement

3:26-cv-00319Txnd31 mar 2026

Testo completo

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
YANAY ALVAREZ CABRERA, 	§
A# 240640159, 	§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:26-CV-319-D-BW
§
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION 	§
AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 	§
Respondent. 	§ 	Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the Court should DISMISS
this habeas action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for
failure to prosecute or follow orders of the Court.
I. BACKGROUND
On February 6, 2026, the Court received a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(28 U.S.C. § 2241), filed and signed by Keyler B. Almanza Laurencio as “next
friend” and on behalf of Petitioner Yanay Alvarez Cabrera, an immigration
detainee.2 (See Dkt. No. 3.) By Notice of Deficiency and Order dated February 11,
2026, the Court informed Almanza Laurencio and Alvarez Cabrera that Almanza
1 By Special Order No. 3-251, this habeas case has been automatically referred for
full case management.
2 At the time Almanza Laurencio filed this habeas action, he did not know where
Alvarez Cabrera was detained. (See Dkt. No. 3 at 2.) Available immigration detention
records show that she is detained at the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Anson, Texas. See
ICE Online Detainee Locator System, https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/search (last visited
Mar. 30, 2026).
Case 3:26-cv-00319-D-BW Document 5 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>
2
Laurencio, a non-lawyer, had not established the propriety of “next friend” status
under 28 U.S.C. § 2242, and he therefore could not represent Alvarez Cabrera in this
habeas action absent such a showing. (See Dkt. No. 4 at 1-2.) It further notified
Alvarez Cabrera that she could pursue habeas relief through licensed counsel or on
her own behalf by filing an appropriate form § 2241 petition under her own
signature. (See id. at 2.)
The February 11 order directed Alvarez Cabrera to obtain licensed legal
representation or complete and return the appropriate form § 2241 habeas petition
under her own signature within 30 days if she wished to proceed with this habeas
action. (See id.) With the order, the Court sent Alvarez Cabrera the appropriate
form for filing a § 2241 habeas petition. (See Dkt. No. 4-1.) The order also directed
Alvarez Cabrera to immediately notify the Court of any change of address and
warned her that failure to comply could result in the dismissal of her case under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (See Dkt. No. 4 at 2.)
Over two weeks have passed since the Court’s deadline expired, and Alvarez
Cabrera still has not filed a § 2241 petition on the appropriate form under her own
signature, and no licensed counsel has entered an appearance in this case. Alvarez
Cabrera also has not taken any action manifesting an intent to proceed in this case.
II. INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “authorizes the district
court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or comply with [a
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure or] a court order.” Griggs v. S.G.E. Mgmt., L.L.C.,
Case 3:26-cv-00319-D-BW Document 5 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>
3
905 F.3d 835, 844 (5th Cir. 2018). 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). Further, a court’s authority under Rule 41(b) is not diluted merely because a
party proceeds pro se, as “[t]he right of self-representation does not exempt a party
from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” Wright v.
LBA Hospitality, 754 F. App’x 298, 300 (5th Cir. 2019).
Here, Alvarez Cabrera has failed to comply with the Court’s February 11
order to obtain licensed legal representation or file a § 2241 habeas petition on the
appropriate form under her own signature, despite a warning that failure to comply
could result in the dismissal of her petition. By not complying with the Court’s
February 11 order, Alvarez Cabrera prevents this action from proceeding and has
failed to prosecute this lawsuit. Accordingly, the Court should exercise its inherent
power to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and dismiss this
action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or follow court
orders.
III. RECOMMENDATION
The Court should DISMISS this habeas action without prejudice under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the
Court.
Case 3:26-cv-00319-D-BW Document 5 Filed 03/31/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>
4
SO RECOMMENDED on March 31, 2026.
____________________________________
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will 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 finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, state the basis for the objection, and indicate 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), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(extending the time to file objections to 14 days).
Case 3:26-cv-00319-D-BW Document 5 Filed 03/31/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.