Thai v. Noem et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
BOA NHAT DOAN THAI,
#A044537422,
§
§
§
Petitioner, §
§
v. § No. 3:25-cv-3192-S (BT)
§
KRISTI NOEM, et al., §
§
Respondents. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Alien detainee Boa Nhat Doan Thai filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See generally Pet. (ECF No. 3). But Thai did not
pay the $5.00 filing fee for habeas actions or apply for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP) with the required certificate of inmate trust account. Nor did his
habeas application comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because he did
not list the respondents against whom he seeks relief. Accordingly, the Court
issued an order and notice of deficiency (NOD) requiring Thai to correct these
deficiencies by December 22, 2025. NOD (ECF No. 4). The Court warned Thai that
his failure to comply with the NOD could result in the dismissal of this action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Id.
Thai’s deadline for compliance with the NOD has passed, but he has not
complied with the Court’s instructions or responded to the NOD.
Case 3:25-cv-03192-S-BT Document 5 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
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)). 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))).
Thai’s failures to pay the full filing fee or submit a proper IFP application
with a certificate of inmate trust account and to file an amended petition complying
with Rule 8 have prevented this action from proceeding.
Thus, the Court should dismiss Thai’s case without prejudice for failure to
prosecute and failure to follow Court orders. See, e.g., Wildhaber v. United States,
2020 WL 2544021, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2020) (“Because [plaintiff] failed to
comply with the orders that he pay the filing fee or file an IFP application with a
certificate of inmate trust account, and has not otherwise responded to it, this case
should be dismissed for failure to prosecute or follow an order of the court.”), rec.
accepted 2020 WL 2542735 (N.D. Tex. May 19, 2020); Texas v. Hill, 2020 WL
Case 3:25-cv-03192-S-BT Document 5 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
5913669, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2020) (“The petitioner failed to comply with the
orders that he file his § 2241 petition on the appropriate form and either pay the
filing fee or submit an IFP application despite a warning that failure to do so could
result in dismissal of the case. The case should therefore be dismissed under Rule
41(b) for failure to prosecute or follow court orders.”), rec. accepted 2020 WL
5912417 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2020).
Recommendation
The Court should dismiss Thai’s case without prejudice
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to
obey Court orders.
SO RECOMMENDED.
March 12, 2026.
____________________________
REBECCA RUTHERFORD
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 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 3:25-cv-03192-S-BT Document 5 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>