IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JOSEPH KELLY DINGLER, )

# 00149118, )

Petitioner, )

vs. ) No. 3:22-CV-1252-D (BH)

)

ROCKWALL COUNTY COURT #2, et al., )

Respondents. ) Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the case should be DISMISSED for failure

to prosecute or follow orders of the court.

I. BACKGROUND

On June 9, 2022, a handwritten “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition for Federal

Asylum under 28 U.S.C. § 2254” was received from the petitioner, a frequent filer in this court. 

(See doc. 2.) Because it appeared to challenge the petitioner’s pretrial detention instead of a state

conviction, the filing was properly construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 instead of § 2254. (See doc. 3.) By Notice of Deficiency and Order dated June 10, 2022, the

petitioner was notified that he had neither paid the $5 filing fee nor submitted a motion to proceed

in forma pauperis (IFP), and that he needed to complete and file a form petition under 28 U.S.C. §

2241. (See id.) He was ordered to file the § 2241 form, and to either pay the fee or file an IFP

motion, within thirty days. (Id.) The notice specifically stated that a failure to comply with the

notice could result in the dismissal of the petition for failure to prosecute or to follow court orders. 

More than thirty days from the date of that notice have passed, but the petitioner has not paid the fee,

filed an IFP motion, filed a completed § 2241form, or filed anything else in this case.

1

 By Special Order No. 3-251, this habeas case has been automatically referred for findings and recommendation.

Case 3:22-cv-01252-D-BH Document 5 Filed 07/18/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 34
II. INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to dismiss sua sponte an

action for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126,

1127 (5th Cir. 1988). 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). Here, the petitioner was given thirty days to

either pay the filing fee or file an IFP motion, and to file a completed form, and the notice

specifically warned that failure to comply could result in the dismissal of his petition. He still has

not complied with the notice and order or otherwise responded. Because he failed to comply with

the notice of deficiency and order within thirty days, his petition should be dismissed without

prejudice for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court.

III. RECOMMENDATION

The petition should be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) without prejudice for want of

prosecution or failure to follow orders of the court, unless the petitioner either pays the $5 filing fee

or files an IFP motion, and files a completed § 2241 form within the fourteen-day time frame for

objecting to this recommendation, or by some other deadline set by the Court.

SIGNED this 18th day of July, 2022.

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 3:22-cv-01252-D-BH Document 5 Filed 07/18/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 35
 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

3

Case 3:22-cv-01252-D-BH Document 5 Filed 07/18/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 36