Ramos Argueta v. Noem et al

1/4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
DARWIN E. RAMOS ARGUETA 	§
§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§
§ 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-112
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, et
al.,
Respondents.
§
§
§
§
§
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Petitioner Darwin E. Ramos Argueta’s “Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241” (Argueta’s “§ 2241 Petition”). Dkt. No. 2.
For the reasons discussed herein, it is recommended that the Court: (1) DISMISS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE Argueta’s § 2241 Petition and (2) DIRECT the Clerk of Court
to CLOSE this case.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 5, 2025, Argueta filed his § 2241 Petition and paid the filing fee. Dkt. No.
2. On September 10, 2025, the Court notified Argueta that he failed to effectuate service
of process upon Respondents in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
Dkt. No. 5; F ED. R. CIV . P. 4(m). The Court ordered Argueta to show cause by September
17, 2025, as to why the Court should not dismiss his § 2241 Petition for said failure to
effectuate service. Id. at 1. To date, neither Argueta or his counsel has responded to the
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 22, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:25-cv-00112 Document 6 Filed 12/22/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2/4
Court’s order, nor have they otherwise prosecuted Argueta’s § 2241 Petition since its
filing.
The Court is unable to verify that Argueta is in the custody of the United States’
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). When searching the ICE “Online
Detainee Locator System,” there are no results for the combination of Argueta’s A-
Number and country of origin1. See Online Detainee Locator System, U.S. IMMIGRATION
AND 	CUSTOMS 	ENFORCEMENT , 	https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/search. 	Searching 	by
Argueta’s name and country of origin also leads to no results. See id.
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
its 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). This dismissal may be with or without prejudice.
Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878, 879–80 (5th Cir. 1996).
1 Argueta’s A-number is A-212875063, and his country of origin is Honduras. Dkt. No. 2 at 25.
Case 1:25-cv-00112 Document 6 Filed 12/22/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3/4
B. 	Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(1), a summons must be served with a copy of
the complaint, and the plaintiff is responsible for having the summons served in time.
F ED. R. CIV . P. 4(c)(1). Under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), if a defendant is
not served within 90 days after a complaint is filed, the court must dismiss the action
without prejudice against that defendant unless the plaintiff shows good cause for failure
of service. F ED. R. CIV . P. 4(m).
III. DISCUSSION
Here, Argueta and his counsel have failed to prosecute this case and comply with
the Court’s September 10, 2025, Notice and Order [Dkt. No. 5] (“Order”). Argueta and his
counsel have not made any filings with the Court for over five months, since Argueta’s §
2241 Petition was filed on June 5, 2025. Dkt. No. 2. Argueta and his counsel have also
failed to show cause as to why service of process was not effectuated within the time limits
prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), per the Court’s Order. Dkt. No. 5.
Considering these factors, the Court finds that this action should be dismissed for failure
to prosecute under Rule 41(b). Further, Argueta’s counsel should be required to show
cause as to why she should not be sanctioned for failure to abide by the Court’s Order.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Court: (1) ORDER
Argueta’s Counsel to show cause as to why she should not be sanctioned for failure to
comply with the Court’s order.; (2) DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Argueta’s
Petition; and (3) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case.
Case 1:25-cv-00112 Document 6 Filed 12/22/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4/4
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 recommendation 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 22nd day of December, 2025, at Brownsville, Texas.
____________________________
Ignacio Torteya, III
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00112 Document 6 Filed 12/22/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 4