IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JUAN RIVERA, a.k.a. Gabriel )

Coridad-Rosario, ID # 97389-079, )

Petitioner, )

vs. ) No. 3:05-CV-1500-M

)

DAN JOSLIN, )

Respondent. )

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an Order of the Court in implementation thereof, subject cause has previously been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:

I. BACKGROUND

On July 28, 2005, the Court received a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner

“Juan Rivera” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On August 3, 2005, the Court issued a Notice of

Deficiency and Order (NOD) that directed petitioner to pay the $5 filing fee for this action or

submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. On August 18, 2005, the Court received an

application to proceed in forma pauperis from “Juan Rivera a/k/a Gabriel Coridad-Rosario”. Upon

review of that application on August 23, 2005, the Court determined that petitioner did not qualify

for in forma pauperis status and directed that he pay the filing fee within thirty days. The Court also

admonished plaintiff that failure to pay the filing fee within the time allotted would result in a

recommendation that in forma pauperis be denied and that this action be dismissed without prejudice

for failure to comply with a court order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Despite three attempts to send

petitioner the August 23, 2005 order, the order has not reached him because it has been returned

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01500-M Document 8 Filed 12/08/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 79
2

as undeliverable. From the notations on the returned mail, it appears that petitioner’s name, Juan

Rivera, does not match the prisoner identification number petitioner provided to the Court or that

petitioner has moved without submitting a change of address. 

It is incumbent upon litigants to provide sufficient information to permit receipt of court

orders. For prisoners, this includes providing their name and associated prisoner identification

number so that the housing facility will accept mail and forward to the proper recipient. Litigants,

furthermore, have a duty to provide a change of address when necessary to update court records.

In this instance, it appears that petitioner has failed in one or more of these respects. 

II. INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

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

action for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court. 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); Martinez

v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (habeas action). In this instance, petitioner has either

failed to provide adequate information so that his housing facility can forward mail to him or failed

to notify the Court of his change in address. In either event, an order of the Court has been

returned as undeliverable. Petitioner has given no indication that he intends to proceed with this

action. Accordingly, the Court should dismiss his petition for want of prosecution.

III. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). To increase the chance that petitioner may receive these findings, the Court

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01500-M Document 8 Filed 12/08/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 80
3

directs the Clerk of the Court to mail the findings to “Juan Rivera a.k.a Gabriel Coridad-Rosario”

and “Gabriel Coridad-Rosario a.k.a. Juan Rivera”. 

SIGNED this 8th day of December, 2005. 

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation on all parties by mailing a copy to each of them. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), any

party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file and serve

written objections within ten days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions, or recommendation to which objections are being made.

The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. Failure to file

written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within ten days after

being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal

conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds

of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc).

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01500-M Document 8 Filed 12/08/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 81