1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

TERRELL RAYSHAWN HUGHES, §

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-01766-E (BT)

§

CITY OF DALLAS, et al., § 

Defendants. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a pro se civil action brought by Plaintiff Terrell Rayshawn 

Hughes. On August 15, 2022, the Court granted Hughes’s motion for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis and attempted to screen his complaint. The 

Court found the complaint deficient and sent Hughes a Notice of Deficiency 

and Order (ECF No. 6), which ordered him to file a complaint in compliance 

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and on a court-approved form. The 

Order further informed Hughes that failure to respond and cure the 

deficiencies by September 15 could result in a recommendation that his case 

be dismissed. Hughes has not filed any response, an amended complaint, or 

otherwise complied with the Court’s August 15 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. 

Case 3:22-cv-01766-E-BT Document 7 Filed 09/21/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 29
2

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)). 

Hughes initiated this civil action by filing a seven-page, single-spaced 

document entitled, “Affidavit: Complaint.” Compl. 1 (ECF No. 3). It appears 

that Hughes claims to be a “sovereign citizen,” as he refers to himself as “a 

Free man on the land.” Id. Hughes alleges that on some unstated date some 

unnamed Dallas police officers violated his “God given constitutional rights 

in front of a Dallas police camera.” Id. He further alleges that the Dallas 

police officers proceeded to illegally search and then arrest him. He then 

poses several “Rhetorical Questions” about the nature and source of law. But 

Hughes has failed to comply with the Court’s order to file his complaint in 

compliance with Rule 8(a) and submit his claims on a court-approved form. 

The Court cannot screen his complaint, and this litigation cannot proceed 

until he cures these deficiencies

Case 3:22-cv-01766-E-BT Document 7 Filed 09/21/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 30
3

Hughes 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 Hughes’s complaint without prejudice 

under Rule 41(b). 

SO RECOMMENDED.

Signed September 21, 2022.

________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

U.S. 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-01766-E-BT Document 7 Filed 09/21/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 31