1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LUIS BENJAMIN LOPEZ, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

No. 3:22-cv-02380-X (BT)

THE STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,

 Defendants.

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court opened this civil action upon severing Luis Benjamin 

Lopez’s civil rights claims from a habeas action Lopez filed under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. See Lopez v. The State of Texas, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00883-XBT. On October 24, 2022, the Court issued a Consent Form (ECF No. 3) and 

Notice and Instructions to a Pro Se Party (ECF No. 2). Two days later, the 

Court entered an Order and Notice of Deficiency (NOD) (ECF No. 8) 

directing Lopez to file a complaint in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 8(a), pay the filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and file his pleadings on the court-approved form. 

Thereafter, on December 12, the NOD was returned to the Court as 

“RETURN TO SENDER, NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED, UNABLE 

TO FORWARD.” (ECF No. 10.) The next day, the Court sent the NOD to 

Lopez at an updated address in White Settlement, Texas. Id. Then, on 

January 9, 2023, the NOD was again returned to the Court as “RETURN TO 

Case 3:22-cv-02380-X-BT Document 12 Filed 01/11/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 242
2

SENDER, NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED, UNABLE TO 

FORWARD.” (ECF No. 11.) Lopez 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

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 Lopez has failed to keep 

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

24, 2022, and that same day, the Court mailed Lopez Instructions, which 

advised him: “You must notify the Court if your address changes, or your 

case may be dismissed.” (ECF No. 2 at 1.) Lopez has failed to provide the 

Court with a current address. Without an address, the Court is unable to 

communicate with Lopez about his case. 

Case 3:22-cv-02380-X-BT Document 12 Filed 01/11/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 243
3

By failing to provide the Court with a current address, Lopez 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 Lopez’s case without prejudice under Rule 41(b). 

SO RECOMMENDED.

Signed January 11, 2023. 

____________________________

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-02380-X-BT Document 12 Filed 01/11/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 244