Opinion
5:22-cv-141/TKW/ZCB
09-30-2022
CHARLES BAILEY, Petitioner, v. WARDEN M.V. JOSEPH, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Zachary C. Bolitho, United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner Charles Bailey, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). On July 18, 2022, the Court entered an order directing him to file an amended petition on the Court-approved form, and to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or, alternatively, file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis by August 17, 2022. (Doc. 3). Petitioner was specifically warned that a failure to respond to Court orders as instructed would result in a recommendation that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an order of the court. Petitioner nonetheless failed to comply.
On August 23, 2022, the undersigned entered an Order directing Petitioner to show cause why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice due to his failure to comply with the Court's order. (Doc. 4). The Court instructed Petitioner that to proceed with this case he must submit (1) either the $5.00 filing fee or a properly completed in forma pauperis application, and (2) an amended § 2241 petition and two complete copies thereof. (Id.) The Court again warned Petitioner that a failure to comply would result in a recommendation of dismissal. (Id.) Petitioner has not responded.
The Court has inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1962). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes dismissal for failure to obey a court order. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 838 (11th Cir. 1989) (citing cases). Dismissal “upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.” Id. Rule 41.1 of the Local Rules of the Northern District of Florida also authorizes the Court to impose sanctions, up to and including dismissal, for failure to comply with a rule or court order. Thus, this matter should be dismissed for Petitioner's failure to comply with orders of the Court.
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the file.
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 unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.