IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MARK MILTON MOORE, §

#00343068, §

PETITIONER, §

§

V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:22-CV-743-C-BK

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS, §

RESPONDENT. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this case was referred to the United 

States magistrate judge for management, including the issuance of findings and a recommended 

disposition where appropriate. For the reasons that follow, this action should be DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a Court order. 

On April 1, 2022, Petitioner filed a document in this Court titled Application for 

Reconsideration and Rehearing Regarding the Denial of Parole and the Parole Process. Doc. 3. 

The pleading appears to attack the denial of parole in state case No. C-74-3180-PH, and is 

addressed to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles rather than this court. Consequently, on 

April 4, 2022, the Court issued a deficiency order advising Petitioner that, insofar as he sought to 

file a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, he must file a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus on the appropriate form with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or 

the $5.00 filing fee. Doc. 4. See N.D. Tex. L.R. 5.4 and Misc. Ord. 13 (requiring inmates to file 

petitions for writ of habeas corpus on the court-approved form); N.D. Tex. Misc. Ord. 14 

(requiring inmates to file motions to proceed <i>in forma pauperis</i> on the court-approved 

Case 3:22-cv-00743-C-BK Document 7 Filed 05/31/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 16
2

form). The deadline for Petitioner’s response was May 3, 2022. As of the date of this 

recommendation, however, Petitioner has not responded to the Court’s order, nor has he sought 

an extension of time to do so. 

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

sponte for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order. 

Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “This authority flows from the court’s 

inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending 

cases.” Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. 

Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)). 

Petitioner has been given ample opportunity to respond to the Court’s deficiency order. 

He has impliedly refused or declined to do so. Therefore, this action should be DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a Court order and for lack of prosecution. 

See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) (an involuntary dismissal “operates as an adjudication on the merits,” 

unless otherwise specified).

1

 

SO RECOMMENDED on May 31, 2022.

1 The one-year statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus petitions in federal court, see 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(d), is applicable to the instant petition and any subsequent petition filed in this 

Court. 

Case 3:22-cv-00743-C-BK Document 7 Filed 05/31/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 17
3

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided by 

law. Any party who objects to any part of this report 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). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is 

made, the basis for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation 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 Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 

(5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time 

to file objections to 14 days). 

Case 3:22-cv-00743-C-BK Document 7 Filed 05/31/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 18