Monroe v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

- 1 -
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ISAAC MONROE, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
V. 	§ 	No. 3:25-cv-1463-E-BN
§
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
§
§
§
Defendant. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case has been referred to the undersigned United States magistrate judge
for pretrial management under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and an order of reference from
United States District Judge Ada Brown. See Dkt. No. 1.
On June 11, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff Isaac Monroe, proceeding pro se,
to serve Defendant Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”) and file proof of
service with the Court no later than 90 days after filing his complaint. See Dkt. No.
9.
On September 18, 2025, after that deadline had passed, the Court entered a
Second Order Regarding Service requiring Monroe to serve TDCJ and file proof of
service with the Court by no later than December 17, 2025. See Dkt. No. 12.
And in that order, the Court cautioned Monroe that if proper service was not
made and shown to the Court, the undersigned would recommend that this case be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to obey court orders. See id.
Case 3:25-cv-01463-E-BN Document 15 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID <pageID>

- 2 -
(citing F ED. R. CIV. P. 4(m) and F ED R. CIV. P. 41(b)).
The Clerk of Court had issued summons for Defendant TDCJ. See Dkt. No. 6.
But there is no evidence in the record that TDCJ was served. Instead, on October 7,
2025, Monroe executed service as to the Office of the Attorney General. See Dkt. No.
13.
But Monroe is required to serve the Director of TDCJ. See F ED. R. CIV. P. 4(j)(2).
So the Court entered a Third Order Regarding Service reminding Monroe that, by
December 17, 2025, he must file with the Court proof of service on Defendant TDCJ,
through TDCJ’s Director. See Dkt. No. 14.
And the Court again cautioned Monroe that, if proper service was not shown
to the Court through a filed proof of service (or waiver of service obtained and filed
with the Court) by the specified deadline, this case, as to TDCJ, was subject to
dismissal without prejudice.
That deadline has since passed, and Monroe still has not effected service as to
TDCJ.
And, so, the undersigned now enters these findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and recommendation that the Court should dismiss this action without prejudice
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 41(b).
Legal Standards
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the time within
which a plaintiff must serve a defendant. That Rule provides in relevant part:
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed,
the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must
Case 3:25-cv-01463-E-BN Document 15 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID <pageID>

- 3 -
dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order
that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows
good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for
an appropriate period.
F ED. R. CIV. P. 4(m).
A district court has authority to dismiss a case for want of prosecution or for
failure to comply with a court order. F ED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); see also 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., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985). Such a
dismissal may be with or without prejudice. See Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878, 879–
80 (5th Cir. 1996). But a dismissal with prejudice is appropriate only if the failure to
comply with the court order was the result of purposeful delay or contumacious
conduct and the imposition of lesser sanctions would be futile. Id. At 880; see also
Berry v. CIGNA/RSI–CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir.1992).
Analysis
Monroe failed to serve TDCJ within 90 days after he filed his complaint despite
the Court's instructions to do so. See Dkt Nos. 9, 12, & 14.
And, to date, Monroe has not filed a response showing good cause for the Court
to extend the time for service for an appropriate period.
And, so, dismissal is warranted for failure to prosecute, and, specifically,
because he failed to timely serve TDCJ after the Court provided him notice of the
consequences of such failure. Accord Trejo v. US Senate, No. 1:23-cv-00067-H-BU,
2024 WL 1863392 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2024) (explaining that failure to serve process
Case 3:25-cv-01463-E-BN Document 15 Filed 12/23/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID <pageID>

- 4 -
alone warrants dismissal); see also Veronica B. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No.
3:19-cv-1341-S-BT, 2019 WL 5967847 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2019).
And dismissal is warranted because of Monroe’s failure to comply with
multiple court orders regarding service. See Dkt. Nos. 9, 12, & 14. The deadlines in
those orders for Monroe to serve TDCJ or show good cause to extend his service
deadline have passed.
The undersigned has no reason to believe that Monroe’s failure to prosecute or
comply with court orders is the result of some improper motive. And, so, the Court
should dismiss Monroe’s claims without prejudice.
Recommendation
The 	Court 	should 	dismiss 	Monroe’s 	complaint 	without 	prejudice
under F ED. R. CIV. P. 4(m) and F ED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on
all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these
findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections
within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); F ED. R. CIV.
P. 72(b). In order 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 findings, conclusions, 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
Case 3:25-cv-01463-E-BN Document 15 Filed 12/23/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID <pageID>

- 5 -
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).
DATED: December 23, 2025
__________________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-01463-E-BN Document 15 Filed 12/23/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID <pageID>