Keller v. Valdez et al

1 / 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
DAPHNE KELLER,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00306
J VALDEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Plaintiff Daphne Keller appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this
prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the time she filed this action,
Plaintiff was confined as a pretrial detainee at the San Patricio County Jail in Sinton, Texas.
Plaintiff’s allegations arise in connection with a search executed at her residence in Aransas
Pass, Texas. Plaintiff sues Aransas Pass Detective J. Valdez and the Aransas Pass Police
Department. (D.E. 1, pp. 1, 3).
On November 19, 2025, the undersigned issued an Order for More Definite
Statement, directing Plaintiff to answer several questions or directives on or before
December 19, 2025. (D.E. 7). The undersigned warned Plaintiff that her original complaint
was deficient and that her failure to comply with the November 19 Order would result in
the dismissal of this action under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at
3.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 15, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:25-cv-00306 Document 15 Filed 01/15/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2 / 3
Plaintiff did not comply with the November 19 Order by submitting a More Definite
Statement. On December 22, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show cause on or
before January 12, 2026, why this action should not be dismissed for want of prosecution
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (D.E. 10). The undersigned instructed
Plaintiff that she would successfully comply with the Show Cause Order by timely filing
her More Definite Statement in response to every question or directive posed to her in the
November 19 Order. Id. at 2. Plaintiff was warned that her failure to comply with the
Show Cause Order in a timely fashion would result in the undersigned recommending the
dismissal of this action. Id. Court records show that the Show Cause Order has been
returned to the Court as undeliverable. (D.E. 13).
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, Plaintiff has not responded to either the
November 19 Order for More Definite Statement (D.E. 7) or the Show Cause Order (D.E.
10). Plaintiff has failed to follow court orders requiring her to submit her More Definite
Statement. She has been previously advised that this action may be dismissed for want of
prosecution if she fails to comply with a court order. Furthermore, it appears that Plaintiff
may no longer be in custody at the San Patricio County Jail and has abandoned her case by
not filing a notice of change of address. Dismissal is therefore warranted under these
circumstances.
Case 2:25-cv-00306 Document 15 Filed 01/15/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3 / 3
Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Plaintiff’s action be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b).
Respectfully submitted on January 15, 2026.
____________________________
Julie K. Hampton
United States Magistrate Judge
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-00306 Document 15 Filed 01/15/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3