1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

RYAN GERARD WALLACE, §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § No. 3:22-cv-01730-E (BT)

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § 

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Ryan Gerard Wallace filed this pro se civil action on August 

9, 2022. (ECF No. 3). Wallace failed to file his complaint on the courtapproved form, and his complaint failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 8(a).1 He also failed to pay the $402.00 filing fee or file a proper 

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, on August 12, 

the Court sent Wallace a Notice of Deficiency and Order (ECF No. 4), which 

1

 Rule 8(a) provides: 

A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s 

jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the 

claim needs no new jurisdictional support;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief; and

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the 

alternative or different types of relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

Case 3:22-cv-01730-E-BT Document 5 Filed 09/14/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 40
2

ordered him to file his complaint on the court-approved form and in 

compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and to pay the filing 

fee or file a proper request to proceed in forma pauperis. The Order 

informed Wallace that failure to respond and cure these deficiencies by 

September 12 could result in a recommendation that his case be dismissed. 

Wallace failed to respond, and the time for doing so has passed. Therefore, 

the Court should dismiss this case without prejudice pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Rule 41(b) 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. 

Griggs v. S.G.E. Mgmt., L.L.C., 905 F.3d 835, 844 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing

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

accord Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 440 (5th 

Cir. 2016) (failure to comply with a court order); Rosin v. Thaler, 450 F. 

App'x 383, 383-84 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (failure to prosecute). “This 

authority [under Rule 41(b)] 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)). 

Wallace failed to comply with the Court’s order to file his complaint 

on the court-approved form and in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 8(a) and to pay the filing fee or file a proper request to proceed in 

Case 3:22-cv-01730-E-BT Document 5 Filed 09/14/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 41
3

forma pauperis. The Court cannot screen his claims and this litigation 

cannot proceed until he cures these deficiencies. In particular, Wallace 

appears to be a sovereign citizen, as he refers to himself as an “American 

Freeman and Private National Citizen.” Compl. 8 (ECF No. 3). His 21-page, 

single-spaced complaint is nonsensical. And despite its length, Wallace has 

failed to set forth any specific legal claims or specify the relief he seeks from 

the Court. It is not clear that the Court even has jurisdiction over this action. 

Wallace also “tendered” a copy of a $1.00 bill to “cover the $5.00 filing fee.” 

But the filing fee for any civil action (including the administrative fee) is 

$402.00. See https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/fee-payment-schedule.

Wallace has failed to prosecute his lawsuit and also failed to obey a 

court order. Dismissal without prejudice is warranted under these 

circumstances. The Court should dismiss Wallace’s case without prejudice 

under Rule 41(b). 

SO RECOMMENDED.

Signed September 14, 2022. 

____________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01730-E-BT Document 5 Filed 09/14/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 42
4

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall 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). 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 report 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 

Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

Case 3:22-cv-01730-E-BT Document 5 Filed 09/14/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 43