1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ROSABLANCA MONIQUE HAYES §

#22017651 

 Plaintiff,

 §

§ 

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-02024-B (BT)

§

DALLAS COUNTY JAIL,

 Defendant.

§

§

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This civil rights case was initiated when it the Court severed it from a 

habeas case filed by Rosablanca Monique Hayes, a former inmate at Dallas 

County Jail. See Hayes v. Dallas County Jail, Case No. 3:22-cv-1641-B (BT) 

(construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241). 

On September 12, 2022, the Court issued a Consent Form (ECF No. 1) and 

Notice and Instructions to a Pro Se Party (ECF No. 4). On September 14, 

2022, the Court issued an Order and Notice of Deficiency. (ECF No. 5.) On 

September 27, 2022, the mail was all returned to the Court as “RETURN TO 

SENDER, REFUSED, UNABLE TO FORWARD.” (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) Hayes has 

failed to provide the Court with a current address. Therefore, this case 

should be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 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

Case 3:22-cv-02024-B-BT Document 8 Filed 10/05/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 53
2

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, this litigation cannot proceed because Hayes has failed to keep 

the Court apprised of her current address. This case was opened on 

September 12, 2022, and that same day, the Court mailed Hayes 

Instructions, which advised her: “You must notify the Court if your address 

changes, or your case may be dismissed.” (ECF No. 4 at 1.) Hayes has failed 

to provide the Court with a current address. Without an address, the Court 

is unable to communicate with Hayes about her case. 

By failing to provide the Court with a current address, Hayes has failed 

to comply with a court order and failed to prosecute his lawsuit. Dismissal 

without prejudice is warranted under these circumstances. The Court should 

dismiss Hayes’s case without prejudice under Rule 41(b). 

SO RECOMMENDED.

Case 3:22-cv-02024-B-BT Document 8 Filed 10/05/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 54
3

Signed October 5, 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-02024-B-BT Document 8 Filed 10/05/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 55