LORUSSO v. VONDERHEIDE

Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
MICHAEL LORUSSO,
Petitioner,
v. 	Case No. 1:25-cv-260-TKW-MJF
NATHAN VONDERHEIDE,
Respondent.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Because Petitioner failed to comply with two court orders and failed
to prosecute this action, the District Court should dismiss this action
without prejudice.
B ACKGROUND
On September 17, 2025, this court ordered Petitioner to submit a
properly completed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 4.
The 	undersigned 	explained 	to 	Petitioner 	that 	a 	fully 	completed
application to proceed 	in forma pauperis 	includes a printout of the
transactions for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of
the petition for writ of habeas corpus as well as a prisoner consent form
and financial certificate signed by an appropriate official. Doc. 4 at 1–2.
Case 1:25-cv-00260-TKW-MJF Document 8 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of October 10, 2025, and
warned Petitioner that the failure to comply with the order likely would
result in dismissal of this action.
On September 29, 2025, Petitioner submitted a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis. Doc. 6. However, despite the undersigned’s clear
instructions, Petitioner’s motion was incomplete. Petitioner filed his
petition on August 27, 2025. Doc. 1 at 6. The in forma pauperis statute,
therefore, 	required 	Petitioner 	to 	submit 	an 	inmate 	trust 	account
statement—or 	institutional 	equivalent—for 	the 	six-month 	period
immediately preceding August 27, 2025. 28 U.S.C. § 1915; N.D. Fla. Loc.
R. 5.3. Petitioner did not do so.
Consequently, on October 16, 2025, the undersigned denied the
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 7. Additionally, the
undersigned ordered Petitioner to explain and show cause for his failure
to 	comply 	with 	the 	undersigned’s 	order 	of 	September 	5, 	2025. 	Id.
Additionally, the undersigned ordered Petitioner to pay the $5.00 fee or
submit 	a 	properly 	completed 	motion 	for 	leave 	to 	proceed 	in 	forma
pauperis. Id. The undersigned imposed a deadline of November 17, 2025,
to comply and again warned Petitioner that the failure to comply with
Case 1:25-cv-00260-TKW-MJF Document 8 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
the order likely would result in dismissal of this action. As of the date of
this report and recommendation, Petitioner has not complied with that
order.
D ISCUSSION
“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) (citations omitted);
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (authorizing the court to dismiss an action, or any
claim within it, “[i]f a party fails to comply with an applicable rule or a
court order”). A district court also may dismiss a civil action sua sponte
for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962). Furthermore, a district court may dismiss
a civil action where a plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee. Wilson v. Sargent,
313 F.3d 1315, 1320–21 (11th Cir. 2002). Petitioner has failed to comply
with two court orders. Petitioner has offered no excuse for his failures
and, consequently, has not shown good cause. Accordingly, dismissal of
this civil action is appropriate.
CONCLUSION
Because Petitioner failed to comply with court orders and failed to
Case 1:25-cv-00260-TKW-MJF Document 8 Filed 12/01/25 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
prosecute this action the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that
the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this action without prejudice.
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 1st day of December 2025.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge 	to 	address 	preliminary 	matters 	and to 	make
recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),
(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to these proposed
findings and recommendations must be filed within
fourteen 	(14) 	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. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 1:25-cv-00260-TKW-MJF Document 8 Filed 12/01/25 Page 4 of 4