IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

JUAN VAZQUEZ-AGUIRRE, § #05281-511, § PETITIONER, § § V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:25-CV-1006-G-BK § EDEN DETENTION CENTER, § RESPONDENT. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to

(b) and Special Order 3, this civil action was referred to the United States magistrate judge for case management, including the issuance of findings and a recommended disposition when appropriate. Upon review, this action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a Court order and for want of prosecution. On April 25, 2025, the Court issued a deficiency order, which required Petitioner to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus on the appropriate form and pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 5. See N.D. Tex. L.R. 5.4 and Misc. Ord. 13 (requiring petitions for writ of habeas corpus on the court-approved form); N.D. Tex. Misc. Ord. 14 (requiring motions to proceed in forma pauperis on the court-approved form);

(requiring $5.00 filing fee for writs of habeas corpus). The deadline for Petitioner’s response was May 27, 2025. As of the date of this recommendation, however, he has not responded to the Court’s order, nor has he sought an extension of time to do so. In addition, on May 20, 2025, the deficiency order mailed by the Clerk of the Court to Petitioner at the Eden Detention Center was returned as undeliverable because Petitioner is no longer confined there. Doc. 7 at 1. Plaintiff has not updated his address as of the filing of this recommendation. See Doc. 2 at | (instructing Petitioner, inter alia: “You must notify the Court if your address changes, or your case may be dismissed. Promptly file a written change of address notice in your case.). Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order. Larson v. Scott,

(Sth Cir. 1998). “This authority 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.,

(Sth Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

(1962)). Petitioner has been given ample opportunity to respond to the Court’s deficiency order and directives. He has impliedly refused or declined to do so. Therefore, this action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a Court order and for lack of prosecution. See FED. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (an involuntary dismissal “operates as an adjudication on the merits,” unless otherwise specified). SO RECOMMENDED on June 9, 2025.

/ / .

E HARRIS TOLIVER UNNEDSTATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See

(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is made, the basis for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds,

(b)(1) (extending the time to object to 14 days).