UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                               

Juan Eduardo Rodriguez Morales,                                         

                                    Case No. 24-CV-3761 (JMB/DJF)       
              Petitioner,                                               



v.                                                                      


                                 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION              
Lisa Stenseth, Warden,                                                  


              Respondent.                                               


   In a letter dated September 27, 2024, the Clerk of Court informed petitioner Juan Eduardo 
Rodriguez Morales that he would be required to pay the filing fee for this action or apply for in 
forma pauperis (“IFP”) status if he intended to prosecute this matter.  (See ECF No. 2.)  Mr. 
Rodriguez was given 15 days to pay the filing fee or submit an IFP application, failing which (he 
was warned) this action could be be dismissed without prejudice.  See id. 
   That deadline has now passed, and Mr. Rodriguez has not paid the filing fee or submitted 
an IFP application.  In fact, Mr. Rodriguez has not communicated with the Court about this case 
at any point.  Not only has Mr. Rodriguez not responded to the September 27, 2024 letter from the 
Clerk of Court, but another prisoner submitted the habeas petition that commenced this case on 
Mr. Rodriguez’s behalf.  Thus, there is substantial reason to doubt that Mr. Rodriguez intends, or 
ever intended, to prosecute this habeas proceeding at this time.          
   The Court therefore recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice under 
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure for failure to prosecute.  See Henderson v. 
Renaissance Grand Hotel, 

 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (“A district court 
has discretion to dismiss an action under Rule 41(b) for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, or to 
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any court order.”).  Mr. Rodriguez may 
reinitiate this proceeding if he decides to do so, but he should be mindful that there is a one-year 
limitations period for his habeas claims.  He should not delay prosecuting his claims any longer 
than necessary for that reason.                                           

                      RECOMMENDATION                                    
   Based upon the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS 
HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE        
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.                     
Dated: October 28, 2024         s/ Dulce J. Foster                      
                                Dulce J. Foster                         
                                United States Magistrate Judge          


                           NOTICE                                       

Filing Objections:  This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the District 
Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate 
judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being served a copy” of the 
Report and Recommendation.  A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after being 
served a copy of the objections.  See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2).  All objections and responses must 
comply with the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).      

                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                               

Juan Eduardo Rodriguez Morales,                                         

                                    Case No. 24-CV-3761 (JMB/DJF)       
              Petitioner,                                               



v.                                                                      


                                 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION              
Lisa Stenseth, Warden,                                                  


              Respondent.                                               


   In a letter dated September 27, 2024, the Clerk of Court informed petitioner Juan Eduardo 
Rodriguez Morales that he would be required to pay the filing fee for this action or apply for in 
forma pauperis (“IFP”) status if he intended to prosecute this matter.  (See ECF No. 2.)  Mr. 
Rodriguez was given 15 days to pay the filing fee or submit an IFP application, failing which (he 
was warned) this action could be be dismissed without prejudice.  See id. 
   That deadline has now passed, and Mr. Rodriguez has not paid the filing fee or submitted 
an IFP application.  In fact, Mr. Rodriguez has not communicated with the Court about this case 
at any point.  Not only has Mr. Rodriguez not responded to the September 27, 2024 letter from the 
Clerk of Court, but another prisoner submitted the habeas petition that commenced this case on 
Mr. Rodriguez’s behalf.  Thus, there is substantial reason to doubt that Mr. Rodriguez intends, or 
ever intended, to prosecute this habeas proceeding at this time.          
   The Court therefore recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice under 
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure for failure to prosecute.  See Henderson v. 
Renaissance Grand Hotel, 

 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (“A district court 
has discretion to dismiss an action under Rule 41(b) for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, or to 
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any court order.”).  Mr. Rodriguez may 
reinitiate this proceeding if he decides to do so, but he should be mindful that there is a one-year 
limitations period for his habeas claims.  He should not delay prosecuting his claims any longer 
than necessary for that reason.                                           

                      RECOMMENDATION                                    
   Based upon the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS 
HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE        
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.                     
Dated: October 28, 2024         s/ Dulce J. Foster                      
                                Dulce J. Foster                         
                                United States Magistrate Judge          


                           NOTICE                                       

Filing Objections:  This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the District 
Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate 
judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being served a copy” of the 
Report and Recommendation.  A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after being 
served a copy of the objections.  See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2).  All objections and responses must 
comply with the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).