IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

SALVADOR JIMENEZ, III §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-120

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner, Salvador Jimenez, III, an inmate confined at the Clements Unit with the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636 and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties

to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation

for the disposition of the case.

Background

This habeas petition was filed March 29, 2023, originally in the Northern District of Texas

(doc. # 1). On June 2, 2023, the Northern District of Texas temporarily granted Petitioner

permission to proceed in forma pauperis pending supplementation of a form Application to Proceed

In Forma Pauperis and a certified in forma pauperis data sheet from the penal institution in which

Petitioner is incarcerated (doc. # 7). Petitioner was given 21 days to comply with this order. On

June 29, 2023, Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (doc. # 8). This

petition was then transferred to the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division, on July 20, 2023.

On July 21, 2023, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to provide a certified income trust statement for

the preceding six month within 30 days, as Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis failed to include the statement (doc. # 11). Petitioner received a copy of this order on

August 9, 2023 (doc. #12). More than ample time has passed, yet Petitioner has failed to comply

with this order or otherwise correspond with the court. 

Case 9:23-cv-00120-MAC-ZJH Document 13 Filed 09/25/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 5
Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for

failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030,

1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “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, 629 (1962)). In the present case, Petitioner has failed to provide the court with a certified

income trust statement for the preceding six month period and has failed to otherwise communicate

with the court. 

Recommendation

This petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 should be

dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

Objections

Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve

and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the

magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). 

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations contained within this report within fourteen (14) days after service shall bar an

aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal

conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United

Servs. Auto. Ass’n., 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R.

2

Case 9:23-cv-00120-MAC-ZJH Document 13 Filed 09/25/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 6
CIV. P. 72.

3

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 25th day of September, 2023.

Case 9:23-cv-00120-MAC-ZJH Document 13 Filed 09/25/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 7