Groover v. Warden, Coastal Bend Detention Center

1 / 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
JEFFREY EMIL GROOVER,
Petitioner,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00292
WARDEN, COASTAL BEND
DETENTION CENTER,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Petitioner Jeffrey Emil Groover, appearing pro se, has filed this prisoner habeas
corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2241. (D.E. 1). At the time he filed this action,
although confined at the Coastal Bend Detention Center in Robstown, Texas, he listed his
mailing address on Camino Real in Boca Raton, Florida. (D.E.s 1, 2). Petitioner, however,
failed to provide the Court with either the $5.00 filing fee or an application to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”).
In the Clerk’s Notice of Deficient Pleading issued on November 3, 2025, Petitioner
was notified that he must do the following within thirty days:
Pay a fee of $5.00 or provide an application to proceed [IFP]. The applicant
is instructed to attach a certified copy of his inmate trust fund account history
containing the deposits and monthly balances for the six month period
preceding the filing of this lawsuit. The applicant is advised to request a
certified copy of his trust account from the unit law librarian.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 06, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:25-cv-00292 Document 13 Filed 01/06/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2 / 4
(D.E. 5). Petitioner was warned that failure to comply with the Notice of Deficient
Pleading in a timely manner may result in his case being dismissed for want of prosecution.
Id.
Petitioner failed to comply with the Notice of Deficient Pleading by submitting
either the full filing fee or a completed IFP application. Thus, on December 10, 2025, the
undersigned ordered Petitioner to show cause on or before December 30, 2025 why this
lawsuit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. (D.E. 12). Petitioner was
instructed that he would comply with the Show Cause Order by timely:
● EITHER PAYING the $5.00 filing fee OR SUBMITTING a completed IFP
application.
Id. at 2. Petitioner was warned that failure to comply with Show Cause Order in all respects
would result in the undersigned’s recommendation to District Judge that Petitioner’s case
be dismissed without prejudice. Id.
A district court has authority to dismiss a case for want of prosecution or for failure
to comply with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d
769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding district courts have the power to sua sponte dismiss a
cause of action for failure to prosecute). To date, Petitioner has not responded to the show
cause order or otherwise sought to cure the deficiencies noted therein. Petitioner has been
previously advised that this action may be dismissed for want of prosecution if he fails to
comply with the show cause orders in a timely manner. Furthermore, it appears that
Petitioner is no longer receiving mail at the Boca Raton, Florida address he provided the
Case 2:25-cv-00292 Document 13 Filed 01/06/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3 / 4
Court (D.E.s 8, 9, 10, 11) and has abandoned his case by not filing a notice of change of
address. Further, a review of Petitioner’s criminal court case in 2:25-mj-581, United States
of America v. Jeffrey Emil Groover, shows that Petitioner was ordered transferred to the
Southern District of Florida on October 10, 2025. Petitioner has not updated his address
with the Court. Dismissal is therefore warranted under these circumstances.
Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Petitioner’s action be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b).
ORDERED on January 6, 2026.
____________________________
Julie K. Hampton
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00292 Document 13 Filed 01/06/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4 / 4
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 2:25-cv-00292 Document 13 Filed 01/06/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4