IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

PAUL THIBODEAUX, §

by and through Salvador Jimenez, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

v. § 2:22-CV-172-Z-BR

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, §

§

Respondent. §

 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

TO DISMISS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

 Salvador Jimenez tendered to this Court a pleading attempting to initiate a federal habeas 

corpus proceeding as next friend for Petitioner Paul Thibodeaux. (ECF 3; ECF 4).

Neither Petitioner nor Jimenez submitted any documentation or information which would 

entitle Jimenez to act as next friend for Petitioner. Accordingly, on September 7, 2022, the Court 

entered an Order directing Jimenez to file documentation and written argument supporting his 

assertion of next friend status in accordance with Whitmore v. Arkansas. 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990); 

(ECF 5 at 1–2). Jimenez was to file said information within 21 days from the date of the Order. 

(ECF 5 at 2). 

As of this date, Jimenez has not filed the required information and, indeed, has not filed 

anything at all.1 The Court has given ample opportunity to comply with its Order, yet Jimenez has 

failed to do so. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1988); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. “This authority 

1

 Likewise, Petitioner, who was served with the Order, has failed to submit any documentation or indicate a 

desire to proceed with the Petition.

Case 2:22-cv-00172-Z-BR Document 6 Filed 10/07/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 13
2

[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., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th 

Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S. Ct. 1386 (1962)). The undersigned 

finds Jimenez’ failure to comply with this Court’s September 7, 2022 Order warrants dismissal.

RECOMMENDATION

It is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United States 

District Judge that the Motion to Proceed as Next Friend, (ECF 4), filed by Petitioner Paul 

Thibodeaux, by and through Salvador Jimenez, be DENIED and the federal habeas corpus 

application, (ECF 3), be DISMISSED.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE

The United States District Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Findings, Conclusions 

and Recommendation to each party by the most efficient means available.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

ENTERED October 7, 2022.

* NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT *

Any party may object to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. In the 

event parties wish to object, they are hereby NOTIFIED that the deadline for filing objections is 

fourteen (14) days from the date of filing as indicated by the “entered” date directly above the 

signature line. Service is complete upon mailing, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), or transmission by 

electronic means, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E). Any objections must be filed on or before the 

fourteenth (14th) day after this recommendation is filed as indicated by the “entered” date. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).

Any such objections shall be made in a written pleading entitled “Objections to the 

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation.” Objecting parties shall file the written objections 

with the United States District Clerk and serve a copy of such objections on all other parties. A 

party’s failure to timely file written objections shall bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds 

Case 2:22-cv-00172-Z-BR Document 6 Filed 10/07/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 14
3

of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings, legal 

conclusions, and recommendation set forth by the Magistrate Judge and accepted by the district 

court. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), 

superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), as recognized in ACS Recovery 

Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, 676 F.3d 512, 521 n.5 (5th Cir. 2012); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 

276–77 (5th Cir. 1988).

Case 2:22-cv-00172-Z-BR Document 6 Filed 10/07/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 15