JONES v. BARKER et al

Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
CHARLES A. JONES,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 1:26cv57-AW-MAF
CHELSEA BARKER,
QUANORIS GAINES,
FRANCISCO SANTIAGO,
and DR. MOUNT,
Defendants.
_________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On March 4, 2026, the pro se Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and a civil rights complaint, ECF
No. 1. After review, Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis motion was denied
because Plaintiff’s financial affidavit showed Plaintiff receives $1,738.00
each month in retirement or social security benefits plus V.A. benefits of
$5,900.00 per month. ECF No. 4 (citing to ECF No. 2). Furthermore,
Plaintiff’s spouse provides an additional $1,700.00 in monthly income.
“With household income of $9,338.00 each month, and reported expenses
Case 1:26-cv-00057-AW-MAF Document 7 Filed 04/23/26 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
of just $2,604.00, Plaintiff is not indigent.” ECF No. 4 at 1-2. An Order was
entered on March 9, 2026, requiring Plaintiff to pay the $405.00 filing fee by
April 6, 2026. ECF No. 4.
On that deadline, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time.
ECF No. 5. Plaintiff’s motion was less than clear. It appeared Plaintiff was
not requesting an extension of time in which to pay the fee but, rather,
Plaintiff appeared to request a “waiver of the fees . . . due to financial
hardship and indebtiveness [sic] . . . .” 	Id. at 1. First, Plaintiff’s request
was not supported by an amended financial affidavit which demonstrated
why Plaintiff was unable to pay the filing fee. Second, Plaintiff did not
provide good cause to grant an extension of time as required by Rule 6.
The motion, ECF No. 5, was denied although, as a courtesy, Plaintiff was
given until April 21, 2026, in which to pay the filing fee. ECF No. 6.
Further, Plaintiff was again directed to strongly consider whether to
continue this case. 	Id. 	That is because the relief requested in Plaintiff’s
initial complaint is barred as witnesses have “absolute immunity for their
testimony during trials.” Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271, 1281 (11th Cir.
1999) (citing Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 103 S. Ct. 1108, 75 L. Ed. 2d
Case No. 1:26cv57-AW-MAF
Case 1:26-cv-00057-AW-MAF Document 7 Filed 04/23/26 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
96 (1983)). Thus, Plaintiff cannot sue persons who testified in his recent
civil trial in a § 1983 civil rights case.
As of this date, Plaintiff has not complied. He has not paid the filing
fee nor has he filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.
“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); see
also Smith v. Bruster, 424 F. App’x 912, 915 (11th Cir. 2011). 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). Here,
Plaintiff was forewarned that if he did not comply with this Court’s Order, a
Case No. 1:26cv57-AW-MAF
Case 1:26-cv-00057-AW-MAF Document 7 Filed 04/23/26 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
recommendation would be made to dismiss this case. ECF No. 6 at 4.
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 April 23, 2026.
S/ 	Charles A. Stampelos1
CHARLES A. STAMPELOS
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.
1 Magistrate Judge Stampelos has signed this Order during the temporary
absence of Magistrate Judge Martin A. Fitzpatrick who is assigned to this case.
Case No. 1:26cv57-AW-MAF
Case 1:26-cv-00057-AW-MAF Document 7 Filed 04/23/26 Page 4 of 4