RICHARDSON v. DOVE et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
EDWARD WARNELL RICHARDSON, JR.,
FDOC Inmate No. V41422,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No.: 3:25cv1416/LC/ZCB
S. DOVE, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff is an inmate of the Florida Department of Corrections
proceeding pro se in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	On
August 26, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP) and assessed an initial partial filing fee of $12.27. 	(Doc.
4). Nearly five months later, Plaintiff has failed to pay the initial partial
filing fee. 	For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s case should be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the initial partial filing fee
and failure to comply with an order of the Court.
The Court received Plaintiff’s complaint on August 21, 2025. (Doc.
1). 	On August 26, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed
IFP. (Doc. 4). When the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP
Case 3:25-cv-01416-LC-ZCB Document 19 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 5

2
(Doc. 2), his account statement showed account deposits sufficient to pay
the initial partial filing fee. 	And based on those statements, the Court
assessed an initial partial filing fee of $12.27 in accordance with the
requirements outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). (Doc. 4). The Court warned
Plaintiff that failure to pay the initial partial filing fee “may result in a
recommendation of dismissal of this action.” 	(Id. at 3). 	It also warned
Plaintiff that if he spent funds that should have been forwarded to the
Court, “the Court may dismiss the case for non-payment.” (Id.).
The Court provided Plaintiff with several extensions to pay the
initial partial filing fee and warned him several times that his failure to
pay the initial partial filing fee would result in the dismissal of his case.
(Docs. 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17). 	In the order granting Plaintiff’s last
request for an extension, the Court told Plaintiff that he would receive no
more extensions and that his failure to pay the $12.27 initial partial filing
fee by December 26, 2025 “will result in a recommendation of dismissal
of this case without further notice.” (Doc. 17 at 2). In the alternative, the
Court 	told 	Plaintiff 	he 	could 	submit 	an 	updated 	inmate 	account
statement showing that he had zero funds accrued in his inmate account.
(Id.).
Case 3:25-cv-01416-LC-ZCB Document 19 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 5

3
On December 19, 2025, Plaintiff sent a “Motion to Waive Filing
Fee,” with an updated inmate trust account statement. 	(Doc. 18). 	But
that inmate account statement shows that Plaintiff had the funds to pay
the initial partial filing fee after the Court ordered him to do so. 	(Id. at
3). 	More specifically, after filing this case, Plaintiff received $70.00 in
deposits to his inmate trust account. 	(Id.). 	And he spent $61.39 at the
canteen. 	(Id. at 3). 	Despite having the funds to pay the $12.27 initial
partial filing fee at various times, Plaintiff made a conscious decision
spend his funds at the canteen.
“Federal courts possess an inherent power to dismiss a complaint
for failure to comply with a court order.” 	Foudy v. Indian River Cnty.
Sheriff’s Off., 845 F.3d 1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up); N.D. Fla.
Loc. R. 41.1 (authorizing the Court to dismiss an action “[i]f a party fails
to comply with an applicable rule or a court order”). A district court may
also dismiss a civil action where a plaintiff fails to pay the initial partial
filing fee. See Wilson v. Sargent, 313 F.3d 1315, 1320-21 (11th Cir. 2002).
Dismissal 	without 	prejudice 	is 	an 	appropriate 	sanction 	for
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and failure to pay the initial
partial filing fee despite having the funds to do so. 	See Walker v. Powell,
Case 3:25-cv-01416-LC-ZCB Document 19 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 5

4
351 F. App’x 384, 386 (11th Cir. 2009) (dismissing prisoner’s complaint
for failure to make partial filing fee payments where prisoner’s account
statements demonstrated that he used the funds for canteen purchases
instead of filing fee payments); see also Lumbert v. Ill. Dep’t of Corr., 827
F.2d 257, 260 (7th Cir. 1987) (“A suit not worth $7.20 to an inmate who
could pay this fee is unlikely to be worth the time of the courts. 	If the
inmate thinks that a more worthwhile use of his funds would be to buy
peanuts and candy (two of the items that, the record shows, Lumbert has
purchased from the prison commissary) than to file a civil rights suit, he
has demonstrated an implied evaluation of the suit that the district court
is entitled to honor.”); Zuniga-Mejia v. Godwin, 2024 WL 1068887, at *6
(N.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2024) (“Because Plaintiff’s non-payment was caused
by his own actions [by spending funds on canteen items], the District
Court should dismiss this action.”).
As another judge on this Court once explained: “All litigants must
make decisions about how to spend their money when litigation is
contemplated. 	Plaintiff’s decision to spend money in the canteen rather
than pursue his claim in this Court is one that the Court is entitled to
uphold.” 	Briand v. State of Fla., No. 4:06cv104, 2006 WL 1890189, at *1
Case 3:25-cv-01416-LC-ZCB Document 19 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 5

5
(N.D. 	Fla. 	July 	10, 	2006). 	Accordingly, 	it 	is 	respectfully
RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice
for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the initial partial filing fee despite his ability
to do so and failure to comply with an order of the Court.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 12th day of January 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 3:25-cv-01416-LC-ZCB Document 19 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 5