IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DEONDRAY RAYMOND MASON, )

#02198087, )

Petitioner, )

vs. ) No. 3:22-CV-969-L (BH)

)

ADAM GONZALEZ, )

Respondent. ) Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

 Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, this habeas case should be dismissed

without prejudice for failure to prosecute or follow an order of the court.

I. BACKGROUND

On April 29, 2022, an “Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Seeking Relief from Final

Felony Conviction Under Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 11.07,” was received from the

petitioner, an inmate currently incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, which

appeared to challenge his detention. (See doc. 3.) It was liberally construed as a federal petition for

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (See doc.4.) By Notice of Deficiency and Order

dated May 3, 2022, the petitioner was notified that this form is typically filed in the Court of

Criminal Appeals of Texas, and that if he intended to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus under

§ 2254 in federal court, he had not filed it on the appropriate form and paid the $5.00 filing fee or

submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). (See id.) Attached to the order were

copies of the § 2254 habeas petition form and an IFP application. (See id.) The order specifically

advised the petitioner that he must file his § 2254 petition on the appropriate form and either pay the

filing fee or file an IFP application within 30 days, and that a failure to do so could result in the

1

 By Special Order No. 3-251, this habeas case has been automatically referred for findings and recommendation.

Case 3:22-cv-00969-L-BT Document 6 Filed 06/21/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 65
dismissal of his case. Id. The notice also stated that if the petitioner did not intend to file a § 2254

petition in federal court, he could file a notice voluntarily dismissing the case within 30 days.

 More than thirty days from the date of the notice have passed, but the petitioner has still not

filed his § 2254 habeas petition on the appropriate form, paid the filing fee, filed an IFP application,

or filed anything else in this case. 

II. INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

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

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

1127 (5th Cir. 1988). 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 petitioner has failed to comply with the order

that he file his § 2254 petition on the appropriate form and either pay the filing fee or submit an IFP

application within 30 days despite a warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal of the

case, and he has not filed anything else in the case. Because the petitioner has failed to follow a

court order or otherwise show that he intends to proceed with this case, it should be dismissed under

Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or follow orders.

III. RECOMMENDATION

This case should be dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to

prosecute or follow an order of the court, unless the petitioner files his § 2254 habeas petition on

the appropriate form and either pays the filing fee or files an IFP application within the time for

objecting to this recommendation or by some other deadline set by the Court.

2

Case 3:22-cv-00969-L-BT Document 6 Filed 06/21/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 66
SIGNED this 21st day of June, 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-00969-L-BT Document 6 Filed 06/21/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 67