The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
SHONDARIOUS CLEO BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 5:24-cv-18-TKW-MJF
SGT. L. BASFORD, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The District Court should dismiss this case without prejudice
because Plaintiff failed to comply with three court orders, failed to
prosecute this action, and failed without explanation to pay the initial
partial filing fee.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff filed this
lawsuit on January 16, 2024. Doc. 1. After months-long delay due to
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders to pay the filing fee or
correct deficiencies in his in forma pauperis application, Plaintiff
eventually filed a complete application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on June 5, 2024. Doc. 9.
The undersigned granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on July 12, 2024. Doc. 10. The undersigned assessed Plaintiff
an initial partial filing fee of $32.17, and ordered Plaintiff to pay the
initial partial fee by August 12, 2024. Id. at 2.
Plaintiff failed to comply. In response to a show-cause order, Doc.
12, Plaintiff requested an extension of time, alleging that prison officials
at the Jackson Correctional Institution threw away Plaintiff’s Special
Withdrawal request. Doc. 13. On September 19, 2024, the undersigned
extended Plaintiff’s payment deadline to October 16, 2024. Doc. 15.1
After Plaintiff still failed to pay the initial partial fee despite being
moved to a new prison, on November 7, 2024, the undersigned ordered
Plaintiff to explain and show cause for his failure to comply with court
orders and failure to pay the initial partial filing fee. Doc. 18. The
undersigned set a compliance deadline of November 22, 2024, and
warned Plaintiff again that failure to comply with the order likely would
result in this case being dismissed. Id. at 2.
1 In the meantime, on September 18, 2024, the Florida Department of
Corrections forwarded a partial filing fee payment of $5.00 from
Plaintiff’s account. Doc. 14. This payment reflects that Plaintiff received
a deposit that triggered the FDC’s obligation to forward a 20%-partial-
filing fee payment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); see also Doc. 10 at 2 ¶ 4.
To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the July 12 and September
19 orders, and has not paid the initial partial filing fee. Plaintiff also has
not responded to the undersigned’s November 7 order requiring Plaintiff,
on or before November 22, 2024, to explain and show cause for his
failures. Doc. 18.2
II. DISCUSSION
“Federal courts possess an inherent power to dismiss a complaint
for failure to comply with a court order.” Foudy v. Indian River Cnty.
Sheriff’s Off., 845 F.3d 1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted);
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (authorizing the court to dismiss an action, or any
claim within it, “[i]f a party fails to comply with an applicable rule or a
court order”). A district court also may dismiss a civil action sua sponte
for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co.,
370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962). Furthermore, a district court may dismiss a
civil action where a plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee despite possessing
2 A copy of the November 7 show-cause order was initially returned to the
court as undeliverable. Doc. 19. On December 17, 2024, the clerk of court
re-mailed the order to Plaintiff at a new address reflected on the FDC’s
inmate locater. See Doc. 19. That mail has not been returned to the court.
Plaintiff has not notified the court of any change of address since October
2024. See Doc. 17.
the ability to do so. Wilson v. Sargent, 313 F.3d 1315, 1320–21 (11th Cir.
2002). Plaintiff has failed to comply with three court orders, Docs. 10, 15,
18. Plaintiff has offered no excuse for his failures and, consequently, has
not shown good cause. Accordingly, dismissal of this civil action is
appropriate.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. DISMISS this action without prejudice; and
2. DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 28th day of January, 2025.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to the
undersigned to address preliminary matters and to
make recommendations regarding dispositive matters.
See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to
these proposed findings and recommendations must be
filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of the report
and recommendation. Any different deadline that may
appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s
internal use only and does not control. An objecting
party must serve a copy of the objections on all other
parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate
judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a
report and recommendation waives the right to
challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th
Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.