Aaron Mohanlal v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-11406
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
AARON MOHANLAL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cv-61182-AHS
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11406 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 1 of 6

-- 1 of 6 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-11406
Before WILSON, L UCK , and B LACK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Aaron Mohanlal, a Florida prisoner represented by counsel
on appeal, appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of
his
pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Mo-
hanlal contends the district court erred when it dismissed his peti-
tion because the local rule regarding page limits was inapplicable
to his habeas petition and the court improperly considered his pe-
tition given his status as a
pro se litigant. After review,1 we affirm
the district court.
I. BACKGROUND
Mohanlal’s first § 2254 petition was 52 pages long. In order-
ing Mohanlal to file an amended petition, the district court in-
formed Mohanlal the petition “significantly exceeds this District’s
20-page limit for motions and legal memoranda,”2 and cautioned
Mohanlal the “failure to comply with this Order will result in
1 The appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion, not
de novo as
Mohanlal contends, as Mohanlal’s appeal stems from his petition’s dismissal
for failure to comply with court rules.
Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 483
(11th Cir. 2006) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion a district court's dismissal
for failure to comply with rules of court).
2 Local Rule 7.1(c)(2) for the Southern District of Florida provides motions
and legal memoranda filed with the court shall not exceed 20 pages without
leave of the court. S.D. Fla. Local Rule 7.1(c)(2).
USCA11 Case: 22-11406 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 2 of 6

-- 2 of 6 --

22-11406 Opinion of the Court 3
dismissal of this case, and that no further amendments will be per-
mitted.” (Emphasis in original). Mohanlal’s amended petition was
42 pages long, which the district court again stated “significantly
exceeds this District’s 20-page limit for motions and legal memo-
randa.” The district court explained, “Petitioner completely ig-
nored the Court’s Order and has resubmitted another lengthy Pe-
tition with cramped writing and extraneous pages inserted
throughout.” In ordering Mohanlal to file a second amended peti-
tion, the district court once again cautioned Mohanlal that the “fail-
ure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this case,
and that no further amendments will be permitted.” (Emphasis in
original). Despite these warnings, Mohanlal’s second amended pe-
tition was 31 pages long. The district court dismissed with preju-
dice for failure to comply with the Court’s orders, stating Mohanlal
had “received sufficient notice of the Court’s authority to dismiss
for failure to comply with court orders,” and that “[n]everthless,
Petitioner is unwilling to comply with the Court’s Orders.”
II. DISCUSSION
The district did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed
Mohanlal’s second amended petition with prejudice. The court
was within its discretion to dismiss the petition for failure to com-
ply with its clear orders to comply with the 20-page limit.
See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b) (providing a district court may dismiss a claim if the
plaintiff fails to comply with a court order);
Betty K Agencies, Ltd.
v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating a
USCA11 Case: 22-11406 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 3 of 6

-- 3 of 6 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-11406
district court may dismiss a claim
sua sponte based on its inherent
power to manage its docket).
Each of Mohanlal’s petitions was accompanied by a motion
requesting a change to the page limit, suggesting Mohanlal was
aware of the rule when he filed his first petition and continued to
ignore the district court’s explicit orders to follow the rule in each
successive filing. The district court warned Mohanlal several times
that his petition needed to comply with the court’s orders setting
out the page limit, or his petition would be dismissed.
See Moon
v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (“While dismissal
is an extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard of an order,
especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not
an abuse of discretion.”).
Even after he received multiple orders directing him not to
exceed the page limit, Mohanlal continued to file amended peti-
tions that were far over the page limit. Mohanlal’s
pro se status did
not excuse him from complying with the court’s orders directing
him to follow the local rules for the length of court filings.
See
Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007) (stating
pro
se litigants are required to comply with applicable procedural
rules). Despite Mohanlal’s argument on appeal that the Southern
District’s Local Rules were inapplicable to his petition, the district
court ultimately dismissed the petition because Mohanlal repeat-
edly did not follow the page limit rule after he was ordered to do
so, not because of the rule itself, which was within the court’s in-
herent power to manage its docket. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b);
Moon,
USCA11 Case: 22-11406 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 4 of 6

-- 4 of 6 --

22-11406 Opinion of the Court 5
863 F.2d at 837;
see also Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1073-
74 (11th Cir. 1986) (
en banc) (recognizing “[f]ederal courts have
both the inherent power and the constitutional obligation to pro-
tect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to
carry out Article III functions” and courts have “a responsibility to
prevent single litigants from unnecessarily encroaching on the ju-
dicial machinery needed by others”).
A district court abuses its discretion when it
sua sponte dis-
misses a civil action with prejudice where (1) the court fails to make
a finding the plaintiff acted willfully or that a lesser sanction would
not have sufficed, and (2) nothing in the record supports a finding
that the plaintiff acted willfully or that a lesser sanction would not
have sufficed.
Betty K Agencies, 432 F.3d at 1338-42. While the
district court did not expressly find other sanctions were not suffi-
cient, the number of warnings and final chances given to Mohanlal,
coupled with the clarity of the court’s instructions, show Mohanlal
willfully failed to comply with court orders and that dismissal with
prejudice was a proper sanction.
See id. While we have remanded
cases in which there has been no finding on the efficacy of sanctions
less severe than dismissal, we have also affirmed dismissals under
Rule 41(b) when the record supported an implicit finding that any
lesser sanctions would not serve the interests of justice.
Mingo v.
Sugar Cane Growers Co-op of Fla., 864 F.2d 101, 102-03 (11th Cir.
1989);
Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985).
While dismissal with prejudice is a severe sanction, the record
shows the district court gave several warnings to Mohanlal, and the
USCA11 Case: 22-11406 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 5 of 6

-- 5 of 6 --

6 Opinion of the Court 22-11406
only action left at its disposal, after he repeatedly and willfully failed
to file a proper petition, was dismissal.
See Goforth, 766 F.2d at
1535. Accordingly, we affirm.3
AFFIRMED.
3 To the extent Mohanlal requests in his brief that we take judicial notice of
his criminal proceedings, his request is DENIED because those proceedings
are not relevant to the district court’s analysis and dismissal of the petition.
USCA11 Case: 22-11406 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 6 of 6

-- 6 of 6 --