1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

ABILENE DIVISION

JOHN ALLEN BRECKLES, § 

Institutional ID No. 02366546, § 

 § 

Plaintiff, § 

 § 

v. § Civil Action No. 1:22-CV-00019-BU 

 § 

Fields, et al., § 

 § 

Defendants. § 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF 

THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se plaintiff JOHN ALLEN BRECKLES, currently incarcerated at Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”) Beto Unit, brought this lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights by numerous state officials. See Dkt.

No. 1. Breckles originally filed his Complaint in the Eastern District of Texas, and his 

claims arising at the Middleton Unit in Abilene, Texas, were severed and transferred to the 

Northern District of Texas, Abilene division. See Dkt. No. 4. 

Upon transfer to the Abilene division, the Court granted Breckles permission to 

proceed in forma pauperis, which subjects his complaint to the Court’s preliminary 

screening measures under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Dkt. No. 11. And because Breckles

brings his suit against government officials, his Complaint is also subject to screening 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The case was transferred to the undersigned to conduct the 

screening required by those statutes. Dkt. No. 12. At this stage of the proceedings, Breckles 

is the only party and has not consented to proceeding before the undersigned. 

Case 1:22-cv-00019-H Document 16 Filed 07/06/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 103
2 

Based on the record now before the Court, and for the reasons stated below, the 

undersigned recommends that Breckles’s complaint be dismissed sua sponte without 

prejudice under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute 

and failure to obey an order of this Court. 

I. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

On April 27, 2022, the Court issued an order requiring Breckles to file an amended 

complaint stating his claims against TDCJ Middleton Unit officials Warden Williams, 

Officer Fields, and Officer Santos. Dkt. No. 13. Breckles was ordered to complete and file 

the Amended Complaint by May 25, 2022. Breckles failed to respond, and so the Court 

issued a Show Cause Order for Breckles to explain his failure to respond and complete the 

questionnaire. See Dkt. No. 15. As of the date of this Order, Breckles has yet to respond to 

either the Order to Replead or the Show Cause Order. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a court to sua sponte dismiss an action 

“with or without notice to the parties,” Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 

401 (5th Cir. 1985), for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules 

or any court order. Such authority “flows from the court’s inherent power to control its 

docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Id. (citing Link v. 

Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)); see also Rosin v. Thaler, 450 F. App’x 383, 383-

84 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (“A district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for 

failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), 

McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988)). 

Case 1:22-cv-00019-H Document 16 Filed 07/06/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 104
3

Dismissal under Rule 41(b) may be with or without prejudice, although a dismissal 

with prejudice for want of prosecution is an extreme sanction that should be used only 

when a litigant’s acts or omissions are “the result of purposeful delay or contumaciousness 

and the record reflects that the district court employed lesser sanctions before dismissing 

the action [with prejudice].” Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878, 880 (5th Cir. 1996).

Dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b) is appropriate. While Breckles has 

not shown purposeful delay or contumaciousness, his failure to follow the orders of the 

Court contravenes instructions provided in the Court’s previous orders in this case. In the 

Court’s Notice to Pro Se Party (Dkt. No. 7), Order to Replead (Dkt. No. 13), and Order to 

Show Cause (Dkt. No. 15), Breckles was admonished that failure to comply with the 

Court’s orders could result in dismissal. Further, the Prisoner’s Civil Rights Complaint 

instructions warn litigants, in all-caps typeface, that failure to briefly and plainly state the 

facts supporting a claim may cause the complaint to be struck. Breckles has failed to 

respond to the Court’s orders, and this case cannot proceed without his compliance. The 

Court is not required to delay the disposition of this case until such time as Breckles decides 

to comply with the Court’s orders. 

II. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the District Judge 

DISMISS sua sponte Breckles’s Complaint and all claims therein without prejudice under 

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute and failure to 

obey an order of this Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (an involuntary dismissal “operates 

as an adjudication on the merits, unless otherwise specified”).

Case 1:22-cv-00019-H Document 16 Filed 07/06/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 105
4 

III. RIGHT TO OBJECT

A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all 

parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, 

conclusions, 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). In order 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 findings, conclusions, 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). 

VI. TRANSFER OF CASE

Having completed the preliminary screening of Breckles’s claims under 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, the undersigned ORDERS that this case be 

TRANSFERRED back to the docket of the United States District Judge and designated as 

Civil Action No. 1:22-CV-00019-H. 

ORDERED this 6th day of July, 2022. 

_____________________________________ 

JOHN R. PARKER 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:22-cv-00019-H Document 16 Filed 07/06/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 106