Wesley v. Baylor Scott and White Hospital et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
LORENZO WESLEY, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:25-CV-2746-D-BW
§
BAYLOR SCOTT & WHITE 	§
HOSPITAL, et al., 	§
Defendants. 	§ 	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
Plaintiff Lorenzo Wesley, appearing pro se in this action, submitted a form
prisoner’s civil rights complaint against Baylor, Scott & White Hospital (“BSWH”)
received on October 9, 2025. (See Dkt. No. 3 (“Compl.”).) In it, Wesley—an inmate
at the Dallas County Jail at the time he submitted the complaint—alleged that a
BSWH security vehicle hit him while he was riding his bicycle in June and did not
stop. (Compl. at 4.) He further alleged that an ambulance was called and he “had to
have [his] leg re-patched.” (Id.) Wesley also submitted an Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (Dkt. No 4.) Upon receipt of Wesley’s complaint, the
1 By Special Order No. 3-251, this prisoner pro se case has been automatically
referred for judicial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (See Dkt. No. 1.)
Case 3:25-cv-02746-D-BW Document 14 Filed 04/01/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID <pageID>

2
Clerk provided him a copy of the Instructions to a Prisoner Pro Se Plaintiff. (Dkt.
No. 2.) These instructions advised Wesley of his responsibility to notify the Court if
his address changed and of the possibility that the case would be dismissed if he did
not. (See id.) The form complaint Wesley submitted notified him of the same.
(Compl. at 2.)
On the following day, the undersigned entered a Notice of Deficiency and
Order informing Wesley of his failure to attach a history of his inmate trust account
to his IFP application. (Dkt. No. 5.) The undersigned directed the Clerk to send
Wesley a form IFP application with a certificate of inmate trust account (“CTA”)
and directed him to submit it within 30 days. (Id. at 1.) The order also advised that
the case was subject to judicial screening and again told Wesley that he “must
immediately notify the Court of any change of address” and that failure to do so
“may result in dismissal of the action under Rule 41(b).” (Id. at 2.)
In the months that followed, Wesley reported in letters received on November
12, 2026, and January 22, 2026, an inability to obtain a CTA. (See Dkt. Nos. 6, 8.)
On January 28, the undersigned entered a Second Notice of Deficiency and Order
explaining the undersigned’s awareness based on experience that pro se plaintiffs
held at the Dallas County Jail routinely submit CTAs or comparable forms. (See
Dkt. No. 9.) The undersigned again provided Wesley 30 days to submit the required
form. (Id.)
On February 25, 2026, the Second Notice of Deficiency and Order, which was
mailed to Wesley at the Dallas County Jail, was received undelivered and marked
Case 3:25-cv-02746-D-BW Document 14 Filed 04/01/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID <pageID>

3
“Not in Dallas County Jail.” (Dkt. No. 10.) Because Wesley’s updated address is
unknown, on March 2, the undersigned entered an Order Requiring Plaintiff to
Inform Court of Intent to Proceed. (See Dkt. No. 11.) The order documented the
undersigned’s confirmation that Wesley is no longer in the Dallas County Jail and
his failure to update his address. The Court ordered Wesley to provide notice of his
intent to proceed with this case by March 30. (Id.)
Wesley’s deadline to manifest an intent to proceed with this case has passed,
and he has not filed anything providing an updated address or otherwise evinced an
intent to proceed with this lawsuit.
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.,
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).
Wesley has failed to comply with the Court’s October 10, 2025 order to file an
IFP application with a CTA and to notify the Court of any change of address,
Case 3:25-cv-02746-D-BW Document 14 Filed 04/01/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID <pageID>

4
despite warnings that failure to comply could result in the dismissal of his petition.
Nor has Wesley manifested an intent to pursue this lawsuit since his release from
Dallas County Jail. By not complying with the Court’s order, Wesley prevents this
action from proceeding and has failed to prosecute this lawsuit. And without an
updated address where Wesley may be contacted, the Court is unable to move this
case forward. 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 action without prejudice under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the Court.
SO RECOMMENDED on April 1, 2026.
____________________________________
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-02746-D-BW Document 14 Filed 04/01/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID <pageID>

5
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 3:25-cv-02746-D-BW Document 14 Filed 04/01/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID <pageID>