United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division
ANTHONY O. LONGSTREET, Plaintiff,
SHAVONYA POOL, R.W. IVEY, and ROBERT R. KYNOCH, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHARLES A. STAMPELOS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
service of the pro se Plaintiff's amended complaint, ECF
No. 8, Defendants filed a motion requesting the Court to
abstain from exercising jurisdiction over this case pursuant
to the Younger abstention doctrine. ECF No. 24.
Alternatively, Defendants requested that this case be
dismissed. Id. An Order was entered on May 3, 2019,
providing the pro se Plaintiff an opportunity to respond to
Defendants' motion. ECF No. 25. In particular, Plaintiff
was advised to explain whether or not he was still facing DUI
charges in Gadsden County, Florida, and to provide
information as to the status of his criminal charge which is
at issue in this litigation. Id.
Plaintiff had not responded by the June 4, 2019, deadline,
another Order was entered on July 11, 2019, noting the
underlying facts of this case, the claims Plaintiff sought to
raise, and the parallel state court criminal proceedings. ECF
No. 26. In light thereof, Defendants' uncontested motion,
ECF No. 24, was granted in part and this case was stayed.
the parties were required to file a notice of case status
every three months, providing information as to the progress
of the state criminal proceeding. Id. In addition, a
warning was given to Plaintiff that he must file a
status report as required and could not rely on Defendants to
do so. In doing so, Plaintiff would demonstrate that there
continues to remain a case or controversy between the parties
and show that he has not abandoned this litigation.
Id. Moreover, because Plaintiff did not file a
response to Defendants' motion, Plaintiff was required to
respond to that Order and file a “status update”
by August 1, 2019. Id.
filed a timely response, ECF No. 27, and advised that there
had been no change in the status of the underlying state
however, did not respond as required. More problematic is the
fact that the last Order entered, ECF No. 26, was never
received by Plaintiff. It has been returned to the Court as
“undeliverable.” ECF No. 28. The postal stamp on
the returned envelope stated only “return to sender,
not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward.”
Id. at 2. The Court has confirmed that the address
used, see ECF No. 28 at 1, is the same address
Defendants listed in their certificate of service,
see ECF No. 27 at 2, and is the same address
Plaintiff provided in the last document he filed. ECF No. 16.
That document was filed on February 21, 2019, ECF No. 16, and
nothing further has been received from Plaintiff since then.
case cannot continue if mail cannot reach the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff had been cautioned in numerous orders of the
importance of filing a timely notice should his mailing
address change. ECF Nos. 15, 20, 23, and 25. It appears that
Plaintiff has abandoned this litigation.
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 (11th Cir. 2005));
see also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1. A “court may
dismiss a claim if the plaintiff fails to prosecute it or
comply with a court order.” Equity Lifestyle
Properties, Inc. v. Fla. Mowing And Landscape Serv.,
Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2009). Because
Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case, dismissal is now
respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be
DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and
failure to comply with a Court Order.
TO THE PARTIES
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 ...