Cook v. John Does 1-10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
TATIANA J. COOK, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§
No. 3:26-cv-00042-S (BT)
JOHN DOES 1-10, §
§
Defendants. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Tatiana J. Cook filed this pro se civil action against 10 unknown
defendants for alleged copyright infringement. See generally Compl. (ECF No. 3).
Now, for the following reasons, the District Judge should DISMISS Cook’s
complaint.
Legal Standards and Analysis
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “do not provide any authority for the
joining of fictitious defendants.” Taylor v. Federal Home Loan Bank Bd., 661
F.Supp. 1341, 1350 (N.D.Tex.1986). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) provides
in relevant part: “Caption; Names of Parties. Every pleading must have a caption.
. .. The title of the complaint must name all of the parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a).
“Plaintiffs, even those proceeding in forma pauperis, have a duty to provide
information sufficient to identify the defendants.” King v. Forest, 2008 WL
4951049, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2008).
Case 3:26-cv-00042-S-BT Document 6 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
Courts may raise the question of personal jurisdiction sua sponte. Id.
(citing Sys. Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. M/V VIKTOR KURNATOVSKIY, 242 F.3d 322,
324 (5th Cir.2001); Frass v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 810 F.Supp. 189, 190
(S.D.Miss.1993)). But when a court does so, “it should provide a reasonable
opportunity for the plaintiff to answer the court’s jurisdictional concerns.” Id.
(citing Sys. Pipe & Supply, Inc., 242 F.3d at 325).
Here, the Court finds that Cook has failed to provide the Court with sufficient
facts to show that it has jurisdiction over “John Does 1-10.” Because the time
allotted for objecting to these findings provides a reasonable opportunity for Cook
to cure the jurisdictional defect, the District Judge should dismiss this action if
Cook fails to properly identify the defendants before the District Judge accepts this
recommendation. See id. (finding that unidentified defendants must be dismissed
because courts lack personal jurisdiction over such defendants).
Recommendation
Accordingly, the District Judge should DISMISS Tatiana J. Cook’s complaint
for lack of personal jurisdiction unless Cook properly identifies the defendants
before the District Judge accepts this recommendation.
SO RECOMMENDED.
January 13, 2026.
____________________________
REBECCA RUTHERFORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00042-S-BT Document 6 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation shall 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 Services
Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
Case 3:26-cv-00042-S-BT Document 6 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>