IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

BRUNZSWICK LAKEITH JONES §

#13070505

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23cv149

BOTIE HILLHOUSE §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner Brunzswick Lakeith Jones, an inmate of the Henderson County Jail proceeding 

pro se, filed this federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus without paying the filing fee. The 

petition was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the petition. 

On March 30, 2023, the Court found that Petitioner had neither paid the filing fee nor filed 

an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). (Dkt. #3.) Accordingly, the Court gave 

Petitioner thirty days to either pay the fee or file a properly supported motion to proceed IFP. (Id.)

The Court expressly warned Petitioner that failure to comply might result in dismissal for 

nonpayment and failure to prosecute. (Id.) Petitioner has failed to comply with the order and has 

not sought an extension of time or taken any other steps since that date to prosecute this case.

A district court may dismiss an action for the failure of a litigant to prosecute or to comply 

with any order of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 

1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (“The court possesses the inherent authority to dismiss the action sua sponte, 

without motion by a defendant.”); Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) 

Case 6:23-cv-00149-JDK-KNM Document 4 Filed 06/30/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 20
2

(explaining that a habeas petition may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b)). Further, the district 

court has both specific and inherent power to control its own docket “to control the disposition of 

the causes on its docket with economy of time.” See U.S. v Colomb, 419 F.3d 292, 299 (5th Cir. 

2005); see also Miller v. Thaler, 434 F. App’x 420, 421 (5th Cir. 2011) (unpublished). 

Here, Petitioner failed to comply with the order directing him to satisfy the fee requirement 

for this case. Dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute or to comply an order of the Court 

is an extreme sanction that should be employed only when “the plaintiff’s conduct has threatened 

the integrity of the judicial process [in a way that] leav[es] the Court no choice but to deny that 

plaintiff its benefit.” McNeal v. Papasan, 842 F.2d 787, 790 (5th Cir. 1988) (citing Rogers v. 

Kroger Co., 669 F.2d 317, 321 (5th Cir. 1982)). A court should consider lesser sanctions, such as 

fines, costs, damages, conditional dismissals, and dismissal without prejudice, among other lesser 

measures, prior to dismissing an action with prejudice. McNeal, 842 F.2d at 793. 

Here, Petitioner’s failure to comply with an order is not an action that threatens the judicial 

process—thereby rendering a dismissal with prejudice unwarranted. Therefore, upon 

consideration of all relevant factors, the Court has determined that the interests of justice are best 

served by a dismissal of this case without prejudice. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, it is recommended that the above-styled habeas corpus action be dismissed, 

without prejudice, for Petitioner’s failure to satisfy the fee requirement and to comply with an 

order of the Court. It is further recommended that Petitioner be denied a certificate of appealability 

sua sponte, which refers to an appeal of this case only and does not prevent refiling. 

Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, any party may 

serve and file written objections to the findings and recommendations contained in the Report.

Case 6:23-cv-00149-JDK-KNM Document 4 Filed 06/30/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 21
3

A party’s failure to file written objections to the findings, conclusions and 

recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen days after being served with a copy 

shall bar that party from de novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions and 

recommendations and, except on grounds of plain error, from appellate review of unobjected-to 

factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. 

United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30th day of June, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00149-JDK-KNM Document 4 Filed 06/30/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 22