JONES v. SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING et al

Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
DANIEL L. JONES, as Trustee for
the VERNELLE S. JONES TRUST,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 1:25cv343-AW-MAF
SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE
SERVICING, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This case was initiated by the pro se Plaintiff who submitted a typed
complaint (not on a complaint form) asserting claims for mortgage fraud,
“securitization irregularities,” and the violation of several federal statutes.
ECF No. 1 at 1-3. An Order was entered on October 31, 225, advising
Plaintiff of several problems with the initiation of this case. ECF No. 4.
First, Plaintiff did not pay the Court’s filing fee or file an in forma
pauperis motion as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Plaintiff was required to either pay the filing fee or file a motion requesting
Case 1:25-cv-00343-AW-MAF Document 7 Filed 12/04/25 Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5
leave to proceed with in forma pauperis status by December 1, 2025. ECF
No. 4.
Second, Plaintiff was informed that the complaint was insufficient
because it was not properly signed as required by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11 or the Local Rules of this Court. 	Id. 	A pro se litigant is not
permitted to file documents electronically and, thus, Plaintiff cannot use an
electronic signature. Moreover, Plaintiff was advised that he must obtain
counsel to represent his interests. ECF No. 4. Counsel is necessary
because Plaintiff seeks to bring this case as Trustee for the Vernelle S.
Jones Trust. 	See ECF No. 1 at 1. “A trust, like a corporation, ‘is an
artificial entity that can act only through agents, cannot appear pro se, and
must be represented by counsel.’” Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d
1381, 1385 (11th Cir. 1985) (quoted in J.J. Rissell, Allentown, PA Tr. v.
Marchelos, 976 F.3d 1233, 1235 (11th Cir. 2020)). “Section 1654
authorizes parties in federal cases to ‘plead and conduct their own cases
personally or by counsel.’” 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (quoted in Franklin v. Garden
State Life Ins., 462 F. App’x 928, 930 (11th Cir. 2012) (holding that
Franklin, as a non-lawyer, could not proceed pro se on behalf of an estate,
even though she was administratrix of the estate)). However, the right to
Case No. 4:25cv394-MW-MAF
Case 1:25-cv-00343-AW-MAF Document 7 Filed 12/04/25 Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
appear pro se “is limited to those parties conducting ‘their own cases’ and
does not apply to persons representing the interests of others.” Franklin,
462 F. App’x at 930 (citing Devine v. Indian River Cnty. Sch. Bd., 121 F.3d
576, 581 (11th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds, Winkelman v.
Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 127 S. Ct. 1994, 2006-07, 167 L. Ed.
2d 904 (2007)). Because there is no indication that Plaintiff Daniel L.
Jones is an attorney, he was required to ensure that a notice of
appearance of counsel was filed along with an amended complaint.
Plaintiff’s deadline for complying with that Order was December 1,
2025. Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to comply with that Order, a
recommendation would be entered to dismiss this case. ECF No. 4. As of
this date, Plaintiff has not complied. Furthermore, Plaintiff did not file a
motion requesting an extension of time or file a notice of voluntary
dismissal. It appears he has abandoned this litigation.
“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
Case No. 4:25cv394-MW-MAF
Case 1:25-cv-00343-AW-MAF Document 7 Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5
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 held 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). This
Court has 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). Because Plaintiff was forewarned and did not respond to a
Court Order, he failed to prosecute this case, and 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 4, 2025.
S/ 	Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case No. 4:25cv394-MW-MAF
Case 1:25-cv-00343-AW-MAF Document 7 Filed 12/04/25 Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5
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. 4:25cv394-MW-MAF
Case 1:25-cv-00343-AW-MAF Document 7 Filed 12/04/25 Page 5 of 5