BAKER v. KRAMER et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
EARL LEVON BAKER, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No.: 1:25cv377/MW/ZCB
BRIAN S. KRAMER, et al.,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP),
commenced this action by filing a complaint. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff later filed
an amended complaint. (Doc. 5). The Court performed its screening duty
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(a)-(b) and determined that the
amended complaint was deficient. 	(Doc. 8). 	Accordingly, on December
30, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint
that fixed the deficiencies within twenty-one days. 	(Id. at 10). 	Also on
December 30, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay an initial partial
filing fee of $15.86 within twenty-one days. (Doc. 7).
Plaintiff did not file a second amended complaint by the deadline.
Nor 	did Plaintiff pay the 	initial partial 	filing 	fee 	by 	the 	deadline.
Therefore, on January 29, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show
Case 1:25-cv-00377-MW-ZCB Document 14 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 3

2
cause, within fourteen days, why this case should not be dismissed for
failure to comply with Court orders. 	(Doc. 12). 	The Court notified
Plaintiff that his failure to show cause would result in a recommendation
of dismissal. 	(Id.). 	The deadline for compliance with the show cause
order 	has 	now 	passed. 	Plaintiff 	has 	not 	filed 	a 	second 	amended
complaint, paid the initial partial filing fee, or provided good cause for
his 	failure 	to 	comply 	with 	the 	Court’s 	orders. 	Thus, 	dismissal 	is
warranted.1
For the reasons above, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that
this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to
comply with Court orders. 	See 	N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (authorizing
dismissal if a “party fails to comply with an applicable rule or a court
order”); see also Duong Thanh Ho v. Costello, 757 F. App’x 912, 914-15
1 	The 	Court 	is 	aware 	that 	its 	show 	cause 	order 	was 	returned 	as
undeliverable. (See Doc. 13). But this does not excuse Plaintiff’s failure
to comply because it was his obligation to ensure the Court had his
accurate mailing address. 	(Doc. 3 at 2). 	See Gilbert v. Daniels, 725 F.
App’x 789, 792 (11th Cir. 2018) (affirming district court’s dismissal where
plaintiff failed to update the court of his address change, which prevented
him from complying with court orders); see also Washington v. Escambia
Cnty. Jail, No. 3:22cv4842, 2022 WL 4486079, at *1-2 (N.D. Fla. June 6,
2022) (dismissing complaint where pro se plaintiff failed to ensure the
Court 	maintained 	his 	current 	mailing 	address), 	adopted, 	2022 	WL
4486984 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2022).
Case 1:25-cv-00377-MW-ZCB Document 14 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 3

3
(11th Cir. 2018) (affirming dismissal where pro se plaintiff failed to file
an amended complaint as directed); Frith v. Curry, 812 F. App’x 933, 935
(11th Cir. 2020) (affirming dismissal where prisoner failed to pay the
initial partial filing fee and failed to respond to a magistrate judge’s order
to show cause as to why the filing fee had not been paid).
At Pensacola, Florida, this 24th day of February 2026.
/s/
Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
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 the objections on 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.
Case 1:25-cv-00377-MW-ZCB Document 14 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 3