DAVIS v. MAYO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION et al

Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
WILLIE DAVIS,
D.O.C. # M46176,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 1:26cv07-TKW-MAF
MAYO CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION and
J. REUDGEN,
Defendants.
______________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, a pro se state prisoner, initiated this case in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. ECF No. 1. It was
transferred to this Court on January 9, 2026. ECF No. 3.
The initiation of this case, however, was improper. An Order was
entered which explained two deficiencies to Plaintiff. ECF No. 6. First, he
was informed that he must file a proper in forma pauperis motion supported
by copies of his inmate bank account statement for the preceding six
month period of time. 	Id. 	Second, Plaintiff was required to file an amended
complaint on the Court’s form as required by Local Rule 5.7(A). 	Id.
Case 1:26-cv-00007-TKW-MAF Document 11 Filed 03/19/26 Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5
On February 17th, Plaintiff filed a 3-page response, ECF No. 7, to
that Order. That document was titled as a “proper amended complaint
motion,” ECF No. 7 at 1, and presented a one paragraph conclusory
assertion that “Mayo Correctional Ins. and J. Reudgen violated
constitutional rights.” 	Id. 	Attached was Plaintiff’s account statement for the
month of December 2025. 	Id. at 2-3. Neither document complied with the
prior Order, ECF No. 6.
Another Order was entered on February 19th, advising Plaintiff that
his submission was insufficient. ECF No. 8. He was again required to
provide a statement for the 6-month period of time preceding the filing of
this case, that is, from July 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025. 	Id.
Plaintiff was given until March 19, 2026, to comply. 	Id. 	Additionally,
Plaintiff was reminded that he “must also file an amended complaint on the
form used in this Court.” 	Id. 	The Clerk of Court was directed once again to
provide Plaintiff with the appropriate in forma pauperis application packet
and the Court’s complaint form. 	Id.
On March 16, 2026, Plaintiff submitted an “amended complaint,” ECF
No. 9, and a copy of his “Inmate Balance History Report,” ECF No. 10.
The 2-page Report provides information for the period of time between
Case No. 1:26cv07-TKW-MAF
Case 1:26-cv-00007-TKW-MAF Document 11 Filed 03/19/26 Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
February 8, 2022, and April 4, 2022. ECF No. 10 at 1-2. That does not
comply with the in forma pauperis requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 which
have been explained to Plaintiff twice. ECF Nos. 6, 8. Furthermore, the
amended complaint, ECF No. 9, is not on the court form and does not
comply with the prior Order.1 ECF No. 9.
If Plaintiff is unable to comply with the simple instructions provided to
him, this case cannot continue. He was informed of the necessity of filing
an in forma pauperis motion and provided the form to do so - twice. ECF
Nos. 6, 8. Yet Plaintiff has still not complied with that Order. Absent the
payment of the filing fee, a plaintiff must file an in forma pauperis motion;
doing so is not optional. Because Plaintiff has been given two chances to
do so and he has failed to comply, it is recommended that this case be
dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b).
Rule 41(b) provides that, “[i]f the plaintiff fails ... to comply with
... a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or
any claim against it.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). In interpreting this
1 For example, Plaintiff was advised that “naming Mayo Correctional Institution as a
Defendant is not permissible.” ECF No. 8. He again listed Mayo Correctional Institution
as a Defendant along with J. Reudgen. ECF No. 9 at 1. Furthermore, he failed to
clearly show that Defendant Reudgen violated his constitutional rights, he did not assert
a claim, nor did he request relief. ECF No. 9. That submission does not comply with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. In addition, it did not include numbered paragraphs
as required by Rule 10(b), and as previously instructed. See ECF Nos. 6, 8.
Case No. 1:26cv07-TKW-MAF
Case 1:26-cv-00007-TKW-MAF Document 11 Filed 03/19/26 Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5
provision, we have held that the district court may sua sponte
dismiss a case under Rule 41(b). 2 Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v.
M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). 	Sua
sponte dismissal is appropriate “to prevent undue delays in the
disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the
calendars of the District Court.” 	Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v.
Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240
(11th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted).
Brutus v. Internal Revenue Serv., 393 F. App’x 682, 683-84 (11th Cir.
2010) . “[A] dismissal under Rule 41(b) ‘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) (quoted in Brutus, 393 F. App’x at 684).
Here, Plaintiff was given several opportunities to comply with simple
instructions. He was warned that if he failed to comply, a recommendation
would be entered to dismiss this case. ECF Nos. 6, 8. Because he did not
comply, this case should be dismissed without prejudice. If and when
Plaintiff is willing and able to file a proper in forma pauperis motion and
2 The power of a district court to dismiss cases sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b) “cannot seriously be doubted” when the dismissal is for failure to comply with “any
order of court . . . .” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (quoted in
Rembert v. Dunmar Ests., No. 22-11526, 2022 WL 17986207, at *1 (11th Cir. Dec. 29,
2022).
Case No. 1:26cv07-TKW-MAF
Case 1:26-cv-00007-TKW-MAF Document 11 Filed 03/19/26 Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5
complaint, he can litigate his claims. At this point, however, further
opportunities to comply should not be provided.
RECOMMENDATION
In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this
case be DISMISSED for failure to comply with Court Orders pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on March 19, 2026.
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). 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. 1:26cv07-TKW-MAF
Case 1:26-cv-00007-TKW-MAF Document 11 Filed 03/19/26 Page 5 of 5