1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ARNOLD STEVEN MIRALDA-CRUZ, §

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-01378-B (BT)

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § 

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a pro se civil rights action brought by Plaintiff Arnold Steven 

Miralda-Cruz, a federal prisoner. On May 2, 2022, Miralda-Cruz filed a 

motion to vacate, set-aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 

Miralda-Cruz v. United States, Case Number 3:22-cv-01045-B-BT (N.D. 

Tex.). In a motion to appoint counsel he filed in his habeas case, MiraldaCruz made several civil claims. See Miralda-Cruz, Case Number 3:22-cv01045-B-BT (ECF No. 9). Accordingly, on June 24, 2022, the Court severed 

the civil claims out and opened this civil rights action. (ECF No. 4.) And on 

June 27, 2022, the Court sent Miralda-Cruz a Notice of Deficiency and Order 

(ECF No. 5), which ordered him to file a complaint in compliance with Rule 

8(a) and on a court-approved form and to pay the filing fee or file a motion 

to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. The Order further informed 

Miralda-Cruz that failure to respond and cure the deficiencies by July 27, 

2022, could result in a recommendation that his case be dismissed. MiraldaCase 3:22-cv-01378-B-BT Document 6 Filed 07/28/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 23
2

Cruz has not filed any response, and he has not paid the filing fee, filed a 

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise complied with 

the Court’s June 27, 2022 Order. 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 

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, Miralda-Cruz has failed to comply with the Court’s order to file 

his complaint 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 litigation cannot proceed until he cures these deficiencies. 

Miralda-Cruz has failed to prosecute his lawsuit and also failed to obey a 

court order. Dismissal without prejudice is warranted under these 

circumstances. 

Case 3:22-cv-01378-B-BT Document 6 Filed 07/28/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 24
3

Recommendation

The Court should dismiss Miralda-Cruz’s complaint without prejudice 

under Rule 41(b). 

SO RECOMMENDED.

Signed July 28, 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-01378-B-BT Document 6 Filed 07/28/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 25