stating it “was within the district court's discretion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ § 1983 action without prejudice either under Rules 11 and 41(b) or under its inherent authority”
How later courts described this case
- stating it “was within the district court's discretion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ § 1983 action without prejudice either under Rules 11 and 41(b) or under its inherent authority”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
RONALD DAVID JONES,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 4:21cv377-MW-MAF
GADSDEN COUNTY
SCHOOL BOARD, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this case on September 15,
2021. This is the sixth case Plaintiff filed within six weeks.1 Plaintiff was
ordered to either pay the filing fee for this case, or file a motion requesting
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 3. As of this date, he has not
complied. Additionally, Plaintiff was required to file an amended complaint.
ECF No. 3. Again, Plaintiff has not complied and the October 12, 2021,
1 Plaintiff filed case number 4:21-cv-00319-AW-MAF, Jones v. Florida Department of
Education, on 07/29/21; he filed case number 4:21-cv-00320-MW-MAF, Jones v.
Gadsden County School, on 07/29/21; he filed case number 4:21-cv-00323-AW-MAF,
Jones v. Gadsden County School Board, on 08/02/21; he filed case number
4:21-cv-00324-MW-MAF, Jones v. Florida Department of Education, on 08/03/21; and
he filed case number 4:21-cv-00331-WS-MAF, Jones v. City of Quincy, on 08/06/21.
Page 2 of 4
deadline for doing so has now passed. Because Plaintiff had been warned
that if he failed to comply a recommendation would be made to dismiss this
case, it now appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this litigation.
It is noteworthy that Plaintiff recently filed a second amended
complaint in case number 4:21cv320-MW-MAF, and an Order has been
entered in that case today which directs service of that pleading.
Accordingly, because Plaintiff cannot simultaneously litigate multiple cases
against the same Defendant, that provides another reason why this case
should be dismissed.
“A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own
docket, may dismiss a case sua sponte” when a Plaintiff “fails to prosecute
or” otherwise comply with a court order. See Ciosek v. Ashley, No.
3:13cv147-RV-CJK, 2015 WL 2137521, at *2 (N.D. Fla. May 7, 2015). The
Supreme Court has held that “[t]he authority of a court to dismiss sua
sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent
power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily
vested in courts to manage their own affairs . . . . ” Link v. Wabash R.R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 1389, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1962)
(quoted in Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337
Case No. 4:21cv377-MW-MAF
Page 3 of 4
(11th Cir. 2005)); see also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1. Furthermore, the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has noted that “[w]hile dismissal is an
extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially
where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of
discretion.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). It is
within this Court’s discretion and “inherent authority” to dismiss an action
for failing to comply with Rule 11. Smith v. Bruster, 424 F. App’x 912, 915
(11th Cir. 2011) (stating it “was within the district court's discretion to
dismiss the plaintiffs’ § 1983 action without prejudice either under Rules 11
and 41(b) or under its inherent authority”). Here Plaintiff was forewarned of
the consequences of not complying with a Court Order and, yet, failed to
prosecute this case. Dismissal is appropriate.
Case No. 4:21cv377-MW-MAF
Page 4 of 4
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED for
failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court Order.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on October 14, 2021.
S/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written
objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the objections shall be served upon all other
parties. A party may respond to another party’s objections within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic
docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not control. If a
party fails to object to the Magistrate Judge’s findings or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this
Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on
appeal the District Court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case No. 4:21cv377-MW-MAF