YOUNG v. STATE OF FLORIDA et al

Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
GARRETT YOUNG,
Inmate # 234153,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 4:25cv436-MCR-MAF
STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this case on October 9, 2025, by
submitting a hand-written complaint, ECF No. 1, that was not on the court
form as required by the Local Rules of this Court. In addition, Plaintiff did
not pay the filing fee or file an in forma pauperis motion for this case. An
Order was entered directing him to do one or the other by November 17,
2025. ECF No. 3. In addition, Plaintiff was required to file an “amended
complaint” by the same deadline.
On November 14th, Plaintiff submitted an “amended complaint,” ECF
No. 4, which at least demonstrated an intent to proceed. Plaintiff was
Case 4:25-cv-00436-MCR-MAF Document 12 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
again advised that he must cure the deficiency with the filing fee, and an
Order to Show Cause was entered, ECF No. 5, giving Plaintiff until
December 5, 2025, to either pay the fee or file a properly completed
motion requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 1 Plaintiff was
warned that if he failed to comply with that Order, a recommendation would
be entered to dismiss this case.
Thereafter, Plaintiff submitted several frivolous documents, ECF Nos.
6-7, and a “motion to access property.” ECF No. 8. Because that motion
was unrelated to this proceeding (Plaintiff was complaining about his state
court criminal prosecution), it was denied. ECF No. 9.
Plaintiff has now filed a petition, ECF No. 10, seeking indigent
supplies such as envelopes, paper, and the like, and another petition, ECF
No. 11, seeking equal time out of his cell as other prisoners. Neither of
those documents comply with the Orders requiring Plaintiff to file an in
forma pauperis motion or pay the filing fee. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not
shown good cause for his failure to do so or even filed a response to that
Order, despite the warning to Plaintiff that a recommendation would be
1 The information as to what constitutes a proper in forma pauperis motion was
provided to Plaintiff in the prior Order, ECF No. 3, and will not be set forth again here.
Case No. 4:25cv436-MCR-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00436-MCR-MAF Document 12 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
made to dismiss this case if he did not comply by the deadline provided.
Dismissal of this action is appropriate.
“A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own
docket, may dismiss a case sua sponte” when a Plaintiff “fails to prosecute
or” otherwise comply with a court order. 	See Ciosek v. Ashley, No.
3:13cv147-RV-CJK, 2015 WL 2137521, at *2 (N.D. Fla. May 7, 2015). The
Court has inherent power “to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution” as
courts must necessarily have authority “to manage their own affairs . . . . ”
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 1389, 8 L. Ed.
2d 734 (1962) (quoted in Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d
1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)); see also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1. Furthermore,
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has noted that “[w]hile 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.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). It is
within this Court’s discretion and “inherent authority” to dismiss a case for
failing to comply with a court Order. Smith v. Bruster, 424 F. App’x 912,
915 (11th Cir. 2011). Here Plaintiff was forewarned and did not respond to
Case No. 4:25cv436-MCR-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00436-MCR-MAF Document 12 Filed 12/11/25 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
several Court Orders. Because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case,
dismissal is appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED for
failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court Order.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on December 11, 2025.
S/ 	Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written
objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. 	Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the objections shall be served upon all other
parties. 	A party may respond to another party’s objections within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2). 	Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic
docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not control. 	If a
party 	fails 	to 	object 	to 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	findings 	or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this
Report and Recommendation, that party 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 No. 4:25cv436-MCR-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00436-MCR-MAF Document 12 Filed 12/11/25 Page 4 of 4