Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

HUGHLAND SMITH,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 4:26cv19-TKW-HTC

SECRETARY OF THE FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

__________________________/

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Hughland Smith, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an amended

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the calculation of his release date from

Lancaster Correctional Institution. Doc. 7. As explained below, Smith has failed to

prosecute this action, to comply with orders of the Court, or to keep the Court

apprised of his address. Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that

this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Smith filed his original habeas petition on January 5, 2026. Doc. 1 at 1. He

did not, however, provide service copies, pay the filing fee, or file a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis. Upon review, the Court ordered Smith to (1) to pay the

filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis; and (2) file an amended

petition by February 19, 2026. Doc. 3.

Smith filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5) which the Court

granted on February 26, 2026. Doc. 6. However, Smith did not file an amended

petition until March 12, 2026. Doc. 7. Despite its tardiness, on March 24, the Court

accepted the amended petition and ordered Smith to provide service copies of the

amended petition, or pay for copies to be made, by April 7. Doc. 8.

On March 27, the Court received a Motion for Monetary Damages and Lost

Wages, filed by Smith on March 23. Doc. 9. Notably, in that motion, Smith stated

that “In the event of my immediate release my mailing address will be 1115

Edgewood Ave. South Apt. 627, Jacksonville, Florida, 32205.” Id. at 2. On March

30, the Court denied the motion for monetary damages and reminded Smith of his

obligation to provide service copies or payment for the clerk to make such copies.

Doc. 10.

On April 8, 2026, Lancaster CI returned the Court’s March 24 Order as

undeliverable and indicated Smith had been “released 3/30/26.” Doc. 11 at 1. A

review of the Florida Department of Corrections’ online records confirms Smith was

released on March 30, 2026, and is under supervision until August 1, 2026.1

Subsequently, as a matter of courtesy and despite having received no change of

address request from Smith, the clerk resent the March 24 and March 30 Orders to

1 https://pubapps.fdc.myflorida.com/OffenderSearch/Search.aspx

Smith at the free world address he provided in the Motion for Monetary Damages.

Doc. 12.

Because Smith’s release may have mooted the amended petition, on April 9,

the Court ordered Smith to give written notice, by April 23, 2026, whether he

intended to proceed with this action and to show cause why the matter had not been

mooted by his release from incarceration. Doc. 12; see Reynolds v. Yeager, 2025

WL 3718394, at *2 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 1, 2025) (petition challenging prison’s

calculation of date for entry into residential reentry center rendered moot by

prisoner’s release into such facility). He was also directed to file a written notice of

address change.2 The April 9 Order was mailed to Smith at Lancaster CI and was

also sent to his free world address. Doc. 12.

However, on April 22, 2026, the Court’s March Orders were also returned to

the Court without any forwarding address. Doc. 14. Thus, the Court has been unable

to communicate with Smith since at least March 30, 2026, because Smith has failed

to keep the Court apprised of his current address, despite being told to do so within

seven days of any change in the Notice to Pro Se Litigant (Doc. 2 at ¶ 6), the Court’s

January 20, 2026, Order (Doc. 3 at 5), and the Court’s February 26, 2026, Order

(Doc. 6 at 3).

2 The Court told Smith on multiple occasions that it is his obligation to keep the Court apprised of

any changes in address. See Notice to Pro Se Litigant (Doc. 2 at ¶ 6), January 20, 2026, Order

(Doc. 3 at 5), and February 26, 2026, Order (Doc. 6 at 3).

Because Smith has (1) failed to prosecute this action; (2) failed to comply with

orders of the Court; and (3) failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address,

this case should be DISMISSED.3 See Reed v. Stewart, 2017 WL 1287672, at *1

(S.D. Ala. Feb. 24, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 1276060

(S.D. Ala. Apr. 3, 2017) (An action may “be dismissed without prejudice pursuant

to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure due to Plaintiff’s failure to

keep the Court apprised of his current address.”); see also, Moon v. Newsome, 863

F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (“[D]ismissal upon disregard of an order, especially

where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.”)

(citations omitted); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th

Cir. 2006) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under [Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b)] for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”) (citations

omitted).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The clerk shall send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to

Smith at Lancaster CI and also to 1115 Edgewood Avenue S, Apt. 627, Jacksonville,

FL 32205-0803.

3 This Report and Recommendation serves as fair notice to Smith, sufficient to allow the Court to

dismiss this action sua sponte. See Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S., 631 F.3d 1321, 1336 (11th Cir. 2011)

(requiring the court employ a fair procedure before dismissing an action sua sponte); see also,

Shivers v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local Union 349, 262 F. App’x 121, 125, 127 (11th Cir.

2008); (noting that report and recommendation served as notice that claims would be sua sponte

dismissed).

And it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:

1. This case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Smith’s failure

to prosecute, failure to keep the Court apprised of his address, and failure to comply

with Court orders.

2. The clerk be directed to close the file.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 28th day of April, 2026.

/s/ Hope Thai Cannon

HOPE THAI CANNON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

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 its objections

upon 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 the unobjected-to factual and

legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.