“Although the rule is phrased in terms of dismissal on the motion of the defendant, it is clear that the power is inherent in the court and may be exercised sua sponte whenever necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” (quotation omitted)
How later courts described this case
- “Although the rule is phrased in terms of dismissal on the motion of the defendant, it is clear that the power is inherent in the court and may be exercised sua sponte whenever necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” (quotation omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
DANNY EDWARD PARSONS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 6:24-cv-2365-JSS-RMN
WAYNE IVEY, ARAMARK, W.
KIDD, BREVARD COUNTY JAIL
COMPLEX, and BREVARD
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sues Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding
the conditions of his confinement at the Brevard County Jail. (See Dkt. 1.) The court
received Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis the same day it
received his complaint. (See Dkt. 2.)
At the time he initiated this action, Plaintiff was in the custody of the Brevard
County Jail; however, the complaint states that Plaintiff was to be released shortly and
provides his new mailing address. (Dkt. 1 at 2.) A review of publicly available
information about Plaintiff’s custody status from the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office
indicates that Plaintiff was released on December 30, 2024.
Because the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis no longer accurately
reflected Plaintiff’s situation after he was released, the court ordered him on February
12, 2025, to amend his motion within fourteen days by submitting an Application to
financial situation. (Dkt. 3 at 1-2.) Alternatively, by the same deadline, Plaintiff could
pay the filing fee in full. Ud. at 2.)
Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the order in a timely
fashion could result in the dismissal of this action without further notice. (/d.) The
order and the form mentioned therein were mailed to Plaintiff at the new address he
provided, and the mailing was not returned undeliverable. Nonetheless, Plaintiff
failed to comply with the order, and the deadline for doing so has passed.
Due to Plaintiff's lack of prosecution in this matter, this action is DISMISSED
without prejudice, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly,
terminate any pending motions and deadlines, and close this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b) (“If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order,
a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.”); Lopez v. Aransas
Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (Sth Cir. 1978) (“Although the rule is phrased
in terms of dismissal on the motion of the defendant, it is clear that the power is
inherent in the court and may be exercised sua sponte whenever necessary to achieve
the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” (quotation omitted)).
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on March 3, 2025.
( a A _ wheeok
JUVIE S. SNEED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Unrepresented Parties