IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

RAYMOND BUTLER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) No. 3:22-CV-0504-E-BH

) 

NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEMS, INC., )

)

Defendant. ) Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In

District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Short Form), filed on March 2, 2022 (doc. 4), should

be DENIED, and the case should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute or comply

with court orders.

I. BACKGROUND

The pro se plaintiff filed this action against the defendant on March 2, 2022. (See doc. 3.) 

He was notified by Notice of Deficiency and Order dated March 7, 2022, that his application for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) did not provide enough information in part because it was not fully

completed. (See doc. 6.) He was ordered to submit a fully completed IFP application within fourteen

days, and he was specifically advised that a failure to do so could result in the dismissal of the case

for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. (See id.) The plaintiff was also sent a magistrate

judge’s questionnaire to obtain more information about his claims. (See doc. 5.) The questionnaire

specifically advised him that his answers were due within fourteen days, and that a failure to file them

could result in the dismissal of the case. Id.

More than fourteen days from the date of the order and questionnaire have passed, but the

1

 Under Special Order No. 3-251, this pro se case has been automatically referred for full case management.

Case 3:22-cv-00504-E-BH Document 7 Filed 03/25/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 29
plaintiff has not filed a fully completed IFP application or his questionnaire answers, or anything else

in this case. 

II. IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Whether to permit or deny an applicant to proceed in forma pauperis is within the sound

discretion of the Court. Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1988); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Courts should make the assessment of financial ability after considering whether payment of the filing

fee will result in the plaintiff “suffering undue financial hardship.” Prows, 842 F.2d at 140. “This

entails a review of other demands on individual plaintiffs’ financial resources, including whether the

expenses are discretionary or mandatory.” Id.

Here, the plaintiff has not submitted a fully completed IFP application as ordered. He has

therefore not shown that he will suffer undue financial hardship after payment of the $402.00 filing

fee for this lawsuit, and his application to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied.

III. INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to dismiss an action sua

sponte for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126,

1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (§ 1983 prisoner action). This authority flows from a court’s inherent power to

control its docket, prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases, and avoid congested court

calendars. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). The plaintiff failed to comply with

orders to submit a fully completed IFP application and questionnaire answers within fourteen days

despite a warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal of the case. He has not filed anything

else in the case. Because the plaintiff failed to follow a court order or otherwise show that he intends

to proceed with this case, it should be dismissed.

2

Case 3:22-cv-00504-E-BH Document 7 Filed 03/25/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 30
IV. RECOMMENDATION

The plaintiff’s IFP application should be denied, and this case should be dismissed without

prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court, unless he

files a fully completed IFP application and questionnaire answers within the time for objecting to this

recommendation, or by some other deadline set by the court.

SO RECOMMENDED on this 25th day of March, 2022.

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/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. Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996). 

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 3:22-cv-00504-E-BH Document 7 Filed 03/25/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 31