Opinion
4:23cv416-MW-MAF
03-25-2024
ANIBAL MORALES, D.O.C. #Y40276, Plaintiff, v. T. WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se, initiated this case on September 20, 2023, by submitting a civil rights complaint, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff acknowledged that he has “three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and he asserted a risk of ongoing physical harm. Based on that assertion, Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status, ECF No. 14, but Plaintiff was required to file an amended complaint. ECF Nos. 15, 17.
Plaintiff did so in January 2024, ECF No. 18, but the amended complaint was insufficient to proceed. Plaintiff was then directed to submit a second amended complaint. ECF No. 20. However, the second Page 2 of 4 amended complaint, ECF No. 21, was also insufficient and failed to comply with prior Court Orders. Thus, an Order was entered on February 14, 2024, which explained the deficiencies Plaintiff must correct and gave Plaintiff a March 14, 2024, deadline to do so. ECF No. 22. Moreover, Plaintiff was warned that a recommendation would be made to dismiss this case if a third amended complaint was not filed by March 14, 2024. Id. As of this date, nothing further has been received from Plaintiff. It appears Plaintiff has abandoned this case.
“A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own docket, may dismiss a case sua sponte” when a Plaintiff “fails to prosecute or” otherwise comply with a court order. See Ciosek v. Ashley, No. 3:13cv147-RV-CJK, 2015 WL 2137521, at *2 (N.D. Fla. May 7, 2015). The Court has inherent power “to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution” as courts must necessarily have authority “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. Furthermore, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has noted that “[w]hile dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially Case No. 4:23cv416-MW-MAF where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). It is within this Court's discretion and “inherent authority” to dismiss this case for failing to comply with a court Order. Smith v. Bruster, 424 Fed.Appx. 912, 915 (11th Cir. 2011). Here Plaintiff was forewarned and did not comply with a Court Order. Because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case, dismissal is appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court Order.