1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DOMINIC LINDSEY, §

#56408-177 §

Petitioner, §

§ No. 3:22-cv-01718-M (BT)

v. §

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § 

Respondent. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dominic Lindsey, a federal prisoner incarcerated at FCI Pollock in 

Pollock, Louisiana, initiated this pro se habeas action by filing a four-page, 

handwritten document entitled “Title 28 USC 2241-Writ of Habeas Corpus.” 

Pet. 1 (ECF No. 3). Lindsey’s handwriting is very small and difficult to read. 

See generally id. On August 10, 2022, the Court sent Lindsey a Notice of 

Deficiency and Order (NOD) (ECF No. 4), which ordered him to file his 

petition in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), on a courtapproved form, and to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis in this case. The Order further informed Linsey that failure to 

respond and cure the deficiencies by September 12 could result in a 

recommendation that his case be dismissed. Lindsey failed to timely 

respond to the NOD.

Accordingly, on September 14, the magistrate judge entered findings 

and conclusions recommending the Court dismiss Lindsey’s petition 

Case 3:22-cv-01718-M-BT Document 8 Filed 11/29/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 33
2

without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Two weeks 

later, Lindsey filed a letter seeking more time to comply with the NOD. 

Lindsey attached a document from the Bureau of Prisons stating that, on 

May 12, FCI Pollock was placed on lockdown status due to an institutional 

emergency. On October 6, the Court construed Lindsey’s letter as an 

objection and vacated the findings and conclusions. The Court advised 

Lindsey that he must correct the deficiencies set forth in the NOD by 

November 21. Again, however, Lindsey failed to timely respond to the NOD. 

Lindsey has not filed a petition that complies with Rule 8(a), paid the filing 

fee, filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise 

corrected the deficiencies in the NOD. Therefore, this case should be 

dismissed 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 

Case 3:22-cv-01718-M-BT Document 8 Filed 11/29/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 34
3

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)). 

Here, Lindsey has failed to comply with the Court’s order to file his 

petition in compliance with Rule 8(a), submit his claims on a courtapproved form, and pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. This Court cannot screen his claims, and this litigation cannot 

proceed until he cures these deficiencies. 

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

court order. Dismissal without prejudice is warranted under these 

circumstances. 

Recommendation

The Court should dismiss Lindsey’s petition without prejudice under 

Rule 41(b). 

SO RECOMMENDED.

Signed November 29, 2022.

________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01718-M-BT Document 8 Filed 11/29/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 35
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-01718-M-BT Document 8 Filed 11/29/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 36