IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ELIE KANDA MUKALA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) No. 3:22-CV-2016-K (BH)

)

GARLAND P.D., et al., )

)

Defendants. ) Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the case should be dismissed without

prejudice for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 12, 2022, the pro se plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants and

sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). (See docs. 3, 4.) Her IFP motion was granted the

next day, on September 13, 2022. (See doc. 6.) On that date, she was also sent a magistrate judge’s

questionnaire to obtain more information about her claims. (See doc. 7.) The questionnaire

specifically advised her that her answers to the questionnaire were due within fourteen days, and that

a failure to file her answers could result in the dismissal of the case. (See id.) Well more than

fourteen days from the date of the questionnaire have passed, but the plaintiff has not filed her

answers, or anything else in this case. 

II. INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

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

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

1

 By Special Order No. 3-251, this pro se case has been automatically referred for full case management.

Case 3:22-cv-02016-K-BH Document 8 Filed 11/28/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 23
1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (§ 1983 prisoner action). 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). The plaintiff

failed to comply with an order to provide answers to the magistrate judge’s questionnaire despite

a warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal of the case. She has not filed anything else

in the case. Because the plaintiff failed to follow a court order or otherwise show that she intends

to proceed with this case, it should be dismissed.

III. RECOMMENDATION

This case should be dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to

prosecute or follow orders of the court, unless the plaintiff files her answers to the questionnaire

within the time for objecting to this recommendation, or by some other deadline set by the court.

SO RECOMMENDED on this 28th day of November, 2022.

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 3:22-cv-02016-K-BH Document 8 Filed 11/28/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 24
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-02016-K-BH Document 8 Filed 11/28/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 25