Allen v. Crow et al

1 / 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
DANNY ALLEN,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00225
MICHAEL CROW, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DISMISS LT. JANE DOE FOR FAILURE TO SERVE
Plaintiff Danny Allen is a Texas inmate appearing pro se and in forma pauperis. In
this prisoner civil rights action, Plaintiff, a transgender female, seeks to raise claims in
connection with TDCJ officials forcibly shaving her head. The undersigned conducted
judicial screening and recommended the Court retain certain claims against Warden
Michael Crow and Lt. Jane Doe, both of the Garza West TDCJ Unit. (D.E. 36). United
States District Judge David Morales adopted the undersigned’s recommendations. (D.E.
47). By separate Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) entered on November 6,
2025, the undersigned recommended Warden Crow be dismissed from this action with
prejudice based on qualified immunity. (D.E. 62). On December 4, 2025, Judge Morales
adopted the M&R recommending the dismissal of Warden Crow. (D.E. 69). The only
defendant remaining in this action is Lt. Jane Doe, who allegedly directed the shaving of
Plaintiff’s head.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 09, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:24-cv-00225 Document 70 Filed 12/09/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2 / 5
Regarding Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain the name and identity of Lt. Jane Doe, the
undersigned has walked a narrow line between using the authority of the Court to identify
this defendant and at the same time maintaining impartiality and the appearance thereof.
During a screening hearing conducted on April 29, 2025, the undersigned directed
questions to Plaintiff in an effort to determine the identity of Lt. Jane Doe. (D.E. 39, pp.
37-42). Other than a general physical description, Plaintiff was unable to identify Lt. Jane
Doe. Nevertheless, the undersigned ordered service on Jane Doe through the Texas Office
of the Attorney General (“OAG”). (D.E. 38). The undersigned also directed Warden Crow
to file the incident report in connection with his responsive pleading in order to identify
the Jane Doe defendant. (D.E. 38).
The OAG responded that it was unable to locate an incident report or identify Lt.
Jane Doe. (D.E. 45). On August 7, 2025, the undersigned held a status conference and
addressed with the parties the identity of Lt. Jane Doe. (D.E. 49). The undersigned granted
Plaintiff’s oral motion for assistance in identifying Lt. Jane Doe and directed counsel for
Warden Crow to present Plaintiff a roster of the female supervisor correctional officers
with photographs of the officers. (D.E. 49). The undersigned further ordered Plaintiff to
move to substitute the correct name of Lt. Jane Doe and to separately move for service by
October 7, 2025. (D.E. 49). Plaintiff was further cautioned that her failure to identify,
correctly name, and request service of Lt. Jane Doe may result in the dismissal of this
defendant from this action. (D.E. 49). The OAG filed an advisory with the Court indicating
that on or before September 7, 2025, Plaintiff was provided with the names and
Case 2:24-cv-00225 Document 70 Filed 12/09/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3 / 5
accompanying photographs of the two female, supervisory correctional officers on duty at
the time, date and location of the incident in question. (D.E. 54). To date, Plaintiff has
neither identified Lt. Jane Doe nor moved the Court to order service. Plaintiff’s deadline
of October 7, 2025, to identify and request service on Lt. Jane Doe has passed. On
November 6, 2025, the undersigned entered a show cause order, directing Plaintiff to show
cause why her claims against Lt. Jane Doe should not be dismissed for lack of service.
(D.E. 64). The Court received Plaintiff’s response on November 24, 2025 (D.E. 68),
although Plaintiff provides no explanation or good cause why the claims against Jane Doe
should not be dismissed.
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states:
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 dismiss the
action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be
effected 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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). This case was filed by Plaintiff on August 16, 2024. The 90-day
period from the date the complaint was filed to serve Lt. Jane Doe has long since expired.
The undersigned has personally asked Plaintiff for any identifying information of
Lt. Jane Doe and has ordered the OAG to provide a roster and photographs of women who
were on duty at the time of the incident. The OAG has complied and has cooperated fully.
In at least three Court orders and one M&R, the undersigned cautioned Plaintiff that it is
her responsibility to identify Lt. Jane Doe and to move the Court for service and that non-
served defendants are subject to being dismissed under Rule 4. (D.E. 49; D.E. 58; D.E. 62,
Case 2:24-cv-00225 Document 70 Filed 12/09/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4 / 5
n. 4; D.E. 64). The undersigned has granted Plaintiff extensions and has taken appropriate
steps to assist Plaintiff in identifying Lt. Jane Doe. Plaintiff has been unable to identify
this defendant for over a year and has not provided good cause to warrant any further
extension of time for effectuating service on Lt. Jane Doe.
Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the district court
DISMISS Lt. Jane Doe from this action without prejudice for want of prosecution by
failing to identify and serve Lt. Jane Doe in a timely fashion under Rule 4(m).
If the Court grants this M&R, Plaintiff will have no pending or remaining claims in
this action as all of the claims and defendants will have been dismissed. Therefore, the
undersigned further recommends the Court ENTER final judgment and CLOSE this case.
Respectfully submitted on December 9, 2025.
_______________________________
Jason B. Libby
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:24-cv-00225 Document 70 Filed 12/09/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5 / 5
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to
each party or counsel. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of
the Memorandum and Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the
United States Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), General Order No. 2002-13, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas.
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
(14) 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. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d
1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Case 2:24-cv-00225 Document 70 Filed 12/09/25 in TXSD Page 5 of 5