United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Panama City Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Michael J. Frank United States Magistrate Judge.
clerk of the court referred this case to the undersigned upon
Plaintiff's failure to respond to the undersigned's
order to show cause (Doc. 12). For the following reasons, the
undersigned recommends that the present action be dismissed
without prejudice for failure to comply with two court
filed this pro se civil rights action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 on January 28, 2019. Plaintiff did not pay
the filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis at that time. Consequently, on March 6, 2019,
the undersigned ordered Plaintiff, by April 5, 2019, to
either pay the filing fee or properly move for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff did
not comply with that order within the deadline set by the
April 19, 2019, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to explain
his failure to comply with the undersigned's previous
order. (Doc. 7). On April 22, 2019, the clerk of the court
received Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis along with a notice of change of address.
in forma pauperis motion suffered from two major
defects: (1) it did not contain all the information needed to
rule on such a motion; and (2) Plaintiff's notice of
change of address indicated that he no longer was a prisoner.
Consequently, Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis-on a form approved by the District Court for
use only by prisoners-did not include the information a court
would need to grant such a motion. The undersigned,
therefore, denied Plaintiff's motion without prejudice,
and the clerk of the court sent to Plaintiff the proper form
to be used by non-prisoners seeking to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Doc. 11). On April 29, 2019, the undersigned
again ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or properly
resubmit his motion and set a new deadline of May 30, 2019.
(Id.). To this date, Plaintiff has not complied with
13, 2019, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to explain his
failure to comply with the undersigned's previous orders.
(Doc. 12). Plaintiff was given until July 15, 2019 to comply.
To this date, Plaintiff also has not complied with that
federal court has at its disposal an array of means to
enforce its orders, including dismissal in an appropriate
case.” Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820,
827, 116 S.Ct. 1777, 1782 (1996). “Federal courts
possess an inherent power to dismiss a complaint for failure
to comply with a court order.” Foudy v. Indian
River Cty. Sheriff's Office, 845 F.3d 1117, 1126
(11th Cir. 2017); Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc. v.
Florida Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d
1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2009) (“The court may dismiss a
claim if the plaintiff fails to prosecute it or comply with a
court order.”); see Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,
370 U.S. 626, 630-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388-89 (1962) (noting
the inherent power of courts to dismiss an action is not
precluded by Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b)). Courts may sua
sponte dismiss cases for failure to comply with court
orders and for failure to prosecute an action. Costello
v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 286-87, 81 S.Ct. 534,
545 (1961) (noting that a district court may sua
sponte dismiss a complaint for a plaintiff's failure
to comply with an order of the court); Snider v.
Melindez, 199 F.3d 108, 112 (2d Cir. 1999) (noting that
the Supreme Court has “long held that courts may
dismiss actions on their own motion in a broad range of
recommending dismissal, the undersigned has taken into
consideration the following seven factors, among others:
The duration of the Plaintiff's failure to
April 29, 2019, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to pay the
filing fee or properly move for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis within thirty days. Plaintiff still has not
complied with that order.
The Plaintiff's failure to comply with ...