HOUSTON v. DIXON

Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
KENTRELL HOUSTON,
Petitioner,
v. 	Case No. 1:25cv346-TKW-HTC
RICKY DIXON SECT DEPT OF CORR,
Respondent.
__________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, Kentrell Houston, proceeding pro se, filed an amended petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 5. For the reasons set forth below, this case should
be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with orders of the Court, and
failure to keep the Court apprised of his address.
On January 6, 2026, the Court ordered Petitioner Houston to provide an
executed financial certificate and account statement and service copy of the
Amended Petition (or pay the costs for the Court to make the copy) by January 27,
2026. 	Doc. 7. 	Houston was advised that failure to comply with the order as
instructed would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. 	Id. 	On
February 3, 2026, after Houston failed to timely respond to the January 6 Order, the
Court ordered Houston to show cause, by February 17, 2026, why his case should
not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or comply with the Court’s orders. Doc. 8.
Case 1:25-cv-00346-TKW-HTC Document 9 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
Case No. 1:25cv346-TKW-HTC
The Court warned Houston that “failure to comply with this order shall result in a
recommendation of dismissal without further notice.” 	Id. 	Houston has not
responded in any way.
Additionally, although none of the Court’s communications to Houston have
been returned, the Florida Department of Correction (“FDOC”)’s online records
show that Houston was released from FDOC custody on January 13, 2026.1
Houston, however, has not filed a notice of change of address and, thus, the Court
does not have a free-world address for Houston.
Thus, the undersigned recommends Houston’s case be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with orders of the Court, and
failure to keep the Court apprised of his address. 	A district court may dismiss a
petitioner’s claims sua sponte pursuant to either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b)2 or the court’s inherent authority to manage its docket. 	Link v. Wabash R.R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962); Coleman v. St. Lucie Cnty. Jail, 433 F. App'x 716, 718
(11th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V
MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)). In particular, Rule 41(b) allows
for the involuntary dismissal of a petitioner’s claims where he has failed to prosecute
1 Available at https://pubapps.fdc.myflorida.com.
2 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to this habeas action. Rules Governing § 2254 Cases,
Rule 12 (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with
any statutory provisions or these rules, may be applied to a proceeding under these rules.”).
Case 1:25-cv-00346-TKW-HTC Document 9 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
Case No. 1:25cv346-TKW-HTC
those claims, comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or local rules, or
follow a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Coleman, 433 F. App’x at 718;
Sanders v. Barrett, 2005 WL 2640979, at *1 (11th Cir. Oct. 17, 2005) (citing Kilgo
v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 192 (11th Cir. 1993)). Additionally, a district court’s “power
to dismiss is an inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its orders and ensure
prompt disposition of lawsuits.” 	Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x
802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir.
1983)).
Also, at the outset of this case, Houston was sent a Notice to Pro Se Litigant,
specifically informing him that “[t]hroughout this case, you are required to advise
the Clerk’s Office in writing of any change in your mailing address by filing a
Notice of Change of Address.” Doc. 2. He was reminded of this obligation in every
order entered by the Court. 	See Docs. 3, 4, 7, & 8. 	Thus, his failure to keep the
Court updated with his current address is grounds for dismissal. 	See Gilbert v.
Daniels, 725 F. App'x 789, 792 (11th Cir. 2018) (affirming District Court dismissal
of case “[b]ecause [plaintiff] failed to update the court of his address change or his
detention, and that failure led to [his] lack of compliance with the order to amend
his complaint.”).
Case 1:25-cv-00346-TKW-HTC Document 9 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
Case No. 1:25cv346-TKW-HTC
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	This case be DISMISSED without prejudice and all pending motions
terminated for Houston’s failure to prosecute and to comply with Court orders and
failure to keep the Court apprised of his address.
2. 	A certificate of appealability be DENIED.
3. 	The clerk be directed to close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 2 nd day of March, 2026.
s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed
within fourteen 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 the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 1:25-cv-00346-TKW-HTC Document 9 Filed 03/02/26 Page 4 of 4