IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

VANESSA CALVIN, Trustee, §

Rodgers Family Trust of Arizona, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00329-O-BP 

 §

JULIUS L. JACKSON, JR., et al., §

§

Defendants. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is the Complaint in this case, purportedly filed pro se by the trustee of a 

trust. Because Plaintiff cannot proceed pro se on behalf of the trust she represents, and because 

Plaintiff has not complied with a Court Order requiring her to correct this legal deficiency, the 

undersigned RECOMMENDS that United States District Judge Reed O’Connor DISMISS this 

case without prejudice.

In April 2022, the pro se Plaintiff, Vanessa Calvin, filed this civil action in her capacity as 

“Trustee to Rodgers Family Trust of Arizona” (the “Trust”). ECF No. 3 at 1. Because “a nonattorney trustee may not represent a trust pro se,” Dillard Fam. Tr. v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 

No. 3:11-cv-1740-L, 2011 WL 6747416, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2011), the Court entered a 

Notice of Deficiency and Order (“NOD”) directing Calvin to either: (a) retain legal counsel to 

represent the Trust; or (b) file an amended complaint that asserts only her personal claims. ECF 

No. 7 at 2. The Court warned Calvin that if she did not do so by May 10, 2022, her case would be 

subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Rule 41(b) permits a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or follow 

court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 

1988). “This authority flows from the court’s inherent power to control its docket and prevent 

Case 4:22-cv-00329-O Document 12 Filed 08/17/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 82
2

undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., 756 F.2d 399, 

401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962)). The dismissal 

may be made with or without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). However, a dismissal with 

prejudice is an extreme sanction that should be employed only where 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.” Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878, 880 

(5th Cir. 1996).

In lieu of retaining counsel for the Trust or filing an amended complaint, Calvin filed a

Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 8); Amended Defendant List (“List”) (ECF 

No. 9); another Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 10); and an Amended Certificate 

of Interested Persons/Disclosure Statement (“Certificate”) (ECF No. 11). No filing complies or 

purports to comply with the Court’s NOD. The Motions are not properly before the Court because 

Calvin cannot legally present them on behalf of the Trust. Dillard Fam. Tr., No. 3:11-cv-1740-L, 

2011 WL 6747416, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2011). And even if they were properly before the 

Court, the Motions are unavailing because neither Calvin nor the Trust are entitled to Courtappointed counsel, and there is no indication this case presents extraordinary circumstances 

warranting such an appointment for either. See Salmon v. Corpus Christi Indep. Sch. Dist., 911 

F.2d 1165, 1166 (5th Cir. 1990) (“There is no automatic right to the appointment of counsel; and 

in a civil case a federal court has considerable discretion in determining whether to appoint 

counsel.”); see also Dillard Fam. Tr., 2011 WL 6747416, at *5 (requiring non-attorney trustee to 

obtain counsel to represent plaintiff trust). Moreover, neither the List nor Certificate purport to be 

an amended complaint asserting only Calvin’s potential claims filed in her individual capacity. See 

ECF Nos. 9, 11.

Case 4:22-cv-00329-O Document 12 Filed 08/17/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 83
3

As the deadline to comply with the Court’s NOD has passed, Calvin’s case is subject to 

dismissal under Rule 41(b). Because the record does not reflect her non-compliance results from 

purposeful delay or contumaciousness, the Court should dismiss her case without prejudice.

Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Judge O’Connor DISMISS this case 

without prejudice under Rule 41(b). However, if Calvin complies with the NOD (ECF No. 7)

within the fourteen-day period permitted for objections (see below) or by such other deadline as 

Judge O’Connor may set, then the undersigned will withdraw this recommendation. Calvin may 

reference the NOD for instructions on how to comply with the Court’s Order.

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 fourteen days after being served 

with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). To be specific, an objection must 

identify the particular 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) (en banc).

SIGNED on August 17, 2022.

______________________________________

Hal R. Ray, Jr.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00329-O Document 12 Filed 08/17/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 84