1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JERAL DURANT HENDERSON, §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § No. 3:22-cv-01702-S (BT)

§

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, § 

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Jeral Durant Henderson filed this pro se civil action on 

August 5, 2022. (ECF No. 3). Henderson failed to file a complaint in 

compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)1, and 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 8, the Court sent Henderson a 

Notice of Deficiency and Order (ECF No. 5), which ordered him to file his 

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-01702-S-BT Document 10 Filed 09/21/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 417
2

complaint in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), and also 

to pay the filing fee or file a proper request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

The Order informed Henderson that failure to respond and cure these 

deficiencies by September 8 could result in a recommendation that his case 

be dismissed. 

On August 11, Henderson filed an amended complaint (ECF No. 6). 

However, the content of this filing is irrelevant to this lawsuit, and it fails to 

comply with Rule 8(a). Thus, on August 16, the Court sent Henderson a 

Second Notice of Deficiency and Order (ECF No. 7). The Order reminded 

Henderson that he had failed to file a complaint in compliance with Rule 

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

pauperis. The Order informed Henderson that failure to respond and cure 

these deficiencies by September 16 could result in a recommendation that 

his case be dismissed. 

On August 19, Henderson filed document, which consists in part of 

the court-approved form for the complaint in a civil case and a portion of the 

court-approved form for a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Henderson provided the names for three defendants, but otherwise, both 

forms are incomplete and unsigned. (ECF No. 8.) Henderson’s filing does 

not set forth any claims or the relief he seeks by this lawsuit, and the filing 

does not comply with Rule 8(a). Henderson also filed a 30-page (singlespaced) document entitled “Filing Fee: 302.00.” (ECF No. 9 at 1.) The 

Case 3:22-cv-01702-S-BT Document 10 Filed 09/21/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 418
3

information contained in the document seems irrelevant to this lawsuit. For 

example, he discusses such ideas as building a shipping container home in 

Louisiana. This document fails to remedy any of the deficiencies previously 

noted by the Court. 

In sum, Henderson has failed to cure the deficiencies noted by the 

Court in its August 8 and August 16 orders, 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)). 

Henderson failed to comply with the Court’s orders to file his 

complaint in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), and also 

to pay the filing fee or file a proper request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Case 3:22-cv-01702-S-BT Document 10 Filed 09/21/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 419
4

The Court cannot screen his claims, and this litigation cannot proceed until 

he cures these deficiencies. 

Henderson has failed to prosecute his lawsuit and also failed to obey 

two court orders. Dismissal without prejudice is warranted under these 

circumstances. The Court should dismiss Henderson’s case without 

prejudice under Rule 41(b). 

SO RECOMMENDED.

Signed September 21, 2022. 

____________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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-01702-S-BT Document 10 Filed 09/21/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 420