Alexander Ismael Benavidez v. Warden F C I Pollock

a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION ALEXANDER ISMAEL BENAVIDEZ CIVIL DOCKET NO. 1:25-CV-01465 #48250-480, SEC P Petitioner VERSUS JUDGE DRELL WARDEN F C I POLLOCK, MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES Respondent

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by pro se Petitioner Alexander Ismael Benavidez (“Benavidez”). Benavidez is imprisoned at the Federal Correctional Institution in Pollock, Louisiana (“FCI Pollock”). He challenges the computation of his sentence by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”).

Because Benavidez failed to comply with the Court’s Order to Amend, the Petition should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

I. Background Benavidez was convicted of possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. , 2:20-CR-01215 (W.D. Tex.), ECF No. 107. On August 28, 2024, he was sentenced to 151 months of imprisonment, with credit for time served since April 5, 2020.

Benavides was ordered to amend his Petition to support his claim that prison staff is attempting to “thwart his efforts” to exhaust administrative remedies. ECF No. 1-1 at 3. He was instructed to produce copies of any written requests for grievance forms; provide the dates on which he made any verbal requests for forms; and provide the name of the staff members who refused to provide him with forms Additionally, as to the merits of the claim, Benavides was ordered to explain why he claims entitlement to release from his 151-month sentence. ECF No. 4.

II. Law and Analysis A district court may dismiss an action for a petitioner’s failure to prosecute or to comply with any order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The dismissal may occur upon the motion of a defendant or the Court’s own motion. The authority to dismiss is provided to “achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases”; to “prevent undue delays”; and to “avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962); , 730 F.2d 248, 251 (5th Cir. 1984); 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980).

Benavides was ordered to amend the Petition by December 8, 2025. To date, he has failed to comply with the Court’s Order to amend, and he has not requested an extension of time within which to comply. Therefore, the Petition should be dismissed under Rule 41.

II. Conclusion Because Benavidez failed to comply with the Court’s Order, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Petition (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), a party may file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service, unless the Court grants an extension of time to file objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). A party may also respond to another party’s objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service of those objections, again unless the Court grants an extension of time to file a response to objections.

No other briefs may be filed without leave of court, which will only be granted for good cause. A party’s failure to timely file written objections to this Report and Recommendation will bar a party from later challenging factual or legal conclusions adopted by the District Judge, except if the challenge asserts “plain error.”

SIGNED on Tuesday, January 20, 2026.

Hf JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE