IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

LUBBOCK DIVISION 

THADDEUS STRAUGHTER, § 

§ 

Petitioner, § 

§ 

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-CV-133-M-BQ 

§ 

GARZA COUNTY SHERIFF, § 

§ 

Respondent. § 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), Petitioner Thaddeus Straughter, a pretrial 

detainee in the Garza County Jail, filed a prisoner civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

on the court-approved form. ECF No. 1. Pursuant to Special Order No. 3-251, this case was 

referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. On July 15, 2022, the undersigned 

determined that the pleading should be construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 

28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 4. On the Court's instruction, Petitioner subsequently filed his 

amended petition on the required form and an application to proceed IFP with a certificate of his 

inmate trust account. ECF Nos. 7, 8. Now, as explained below, the undersigned recommends that 

this ci vii action be dismissed for want of prosecution. 

On at least three separate occasions, Petitioner has been advised of his obligation to 

promptly notify the Court of any change of address, and that failure to file such notice may result 

in dismissal of his case for want of prosecution. See ECF Nos. 1, 2, 7. On November 2, 2022, the 

Clerk mailed the order granting leave to proceed IFP to Petitioner at his last known address-the 

Garza County Jail. ECF No. 9; see "Clerk's Notice of delivery." But on November 15, 2022, the 

envelope containing the November 2 order was returned unopened. ECF No. 10. The envelope 

Case 5:22-cv-00133-M-BQ Document 11 Filed 12/16/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 36
was marked "RTS," "Return to Sender," "Not Deliverable as Addressed," and "Unable to 

Forward." Id. Petitioner has not provided the Court with his current address or otherwise 

communicated with the Court since filing his amended petition and IFP documents on July 26, 

2022. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (b) authorizes the district comt to dismiss an action sua 

sponte for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also 

Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). "The power to invoke this sanction is 

necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid 

congestion in the calendars of the District Courts." Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-

30 (1962); accord Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997). This case cannot 

proceed because Petitioner's current mailing address is unknown, so the Court has no way of 

communicating with him about this case. The undersigned therefore recommends that this case 

be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(b) because of Petitioner's failure to notify the Court of his current address. 

RECOMMENDATION 

Because Petitioner has failed to update his mailing address or otherwise communicate with 

the Court, the undersigned recommends that the United States District Judge dismiss this action 

without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

RIGHT TO 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 fourteen days after being served 

with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(6)(1) (2017); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). To be specific, an objection 

must identify the specific finding, conclusion, or recommendation to which objection is made, 

state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's findings, 

2 

Case 5:22-cv-00133-M-BQ Document 11 Filed 12/16/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 37
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. Auto. Ass 'n, 79 F.3d 

1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Dated: December J...b., 2022. 

ri. GORDON BRY ANTjm.. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

3 

Case 5:22-cv-00133-M-BQ Document 11 Filed 12/16/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 38