IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

GLENN WINNINGHAM, )

)

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) No. 3:22-CV-1752-S (BH)

)

CORY BLOUNT, et al., )

)

Defendants. ) 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 (Long Form), filed on October 14, 2022 (doc.

36), should be DENIED, and the case should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to

prosecute or comply with court orders.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 8, 2022, the pro se plaintiff filed what appeared to be a new complaint with

numerous supporting documents against numerous defendants (many of whom appear to reside

outside of this district) in a long-closed civil action, Winningham v. Blount, No. 3:19-CV-1986-

S-BH (N.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2019). (See docs. 4, 6-16.) By order dated August 10, 2022, the

complaint was unfiled in the closed action and filed in a newly opened civil action. (See doc. 3.)

He was notified by Notice of Deficiency and Order dated August 12, 2022, that his complaint did

not comply with the requirement in Fed. R. Civ. 8(a) of a short and plain statement of his claims,

and that he had not paid the filing fee or filed an application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP). (See doc. 5.) He was ordered to file an amended complaint that complied with

1

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

Case 3:22-cv-01752-S-BH Document 40 Filed 11/18/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 11046
Rule 8(a) and to either pay the filing fee or submit a fully completed and signed 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.) 

On August 26, 2022, the plaintiff filed a number of documents alleging wrongdoing by

various public officials and judges, many of whom were not named as defendants, that did not

comply with the directive to in August 12 order for a short and plain statement of his claims

against the defendants. (See docs. 17, 19-24.) Although he filed an IFP application, he wrote

“N/A” in response to each question, and attached a lengthy declaration explaining why he did

not have to answer the questions. (See doc. 13.) Because the application did not provide

sufficient information for determination of whether he qualified for IFP status, it was ordered

unfiled by Second Notice of Deficiency and Order dated August 31, 2022, which again ordered

him to submit a fully completed and signed IFP application and to file an amended complaint

that complied with Rule 8(a) within fourteen days. (See doc. 25.) The order specifically advised

that a failure to comply could result in the dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute or

comply with court orders. (See id.) 

On September 16, 2022, the plaintiff filed a second IFP application that again failed to

answer the questions and again included a declaration explaining why he did not have to answer

the questions. (See doc. 27.) He also filed a document consisting of more than 1500 pages,

which did not set out his claims against the defendants he had named in his initial filing, and

again complained . (See doc. 28.) The non-compliant application was ordered unfiled by a third

Final Notice of Deficiency and Order dated September 26, 2022, and he was given a final

opportunity to submit a fully completed and signed IFP application and to file an amended

2

Case 3:22-cv-01752-S-BH Document 40 Filed 11/18/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 11047
complaint that complied with Rule 8(a) within fourteen days. (See doc. 28.) The order

specifically advised that a failure to comply could result in the dismissal of the case for failure to

prosecute or comply with court orders. (See id.) 

On September 28, 2022, and October 14, 2022, the plaintiff filed numerous documents

again complaining of wrongdoing by various public officials and judges who were not named as

defendants, as well as another IFP application that included a declaration in lieu of actual

answers to the questions in the application. (See docs. 29-39.) 

More than fourteen days from the date of the final notice of deficiency and order have

passed, but the plaintiff has not filed a fully completed IFP application or an amended complaint

that complies with Rule 8(a). Since October 14, 2022, he nas not filed 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, despite several opportunities, 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.

3

Case 3:22-cv-01752-S-BH Document 40 Filed 11/18/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 11048
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 an

amended complaint that complies with Rule 8(a) despite a warning that failure to do so could

result in dismissal of the case. He has not filed anything else in the case since October 14, 2022. 

Because the plaintiff failed to follow several court orders or otherwise show that he intends to

proceed with this case, it should be dismissed.

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 an amended complaint that complies

with Rule 8(a) within the time for objecting to this recommendation, or by some other deadline

set by the court.

SO RECOMMENDED on this 18th day of November, 2022.

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 3:22-cv-01752-S-BH Document 40 Filed 11/18/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 11049
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

5

Case 3:22-cv-01752-S-BH Document 40 Filed 11/18/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 11050