BRUCE v. DOE et al

Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
EMMANUEL BRUCE,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:26-cv-7-AW-MJF
JOHN DOE (WASHGINTON
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
WARDEN), et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed because
Plaintiff failed to comply with two court orders, failed to comply with the
Local Rules, and failed to pay the filing fee.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff 	is 	a 	Florida 	prisoner 	housed 	at 	the 	Everglades
Correctional 	Institution. 	Plaintiff 	commenced 	this 	civil 	action 	on
December 31, 2025, by filing a pro se civil rights complaint and a motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Docs. 1, 2. Plaintiff’s complaint
was deficient because it was not filed on the Northern District’s form. See
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.7(A).
Case 5:26-cv-00007-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was
deficient for the same reason—it was not filed on the Northern District’s
form. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.3. In addition, Plaintiff’s application did not
include 	the 	required 	prisoner 	consent 	form 	and 	6-month 	account
printout. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Accordingly, 	on 	January 	16, 	2026, 	the 	undersigned 	ordered
Plaintiff to file an amended civil rights complaint on the Northern
District’s form accompanied by the $405.00 filing fee or a complete
application 	for 	leave 	to 	proceed 	in 	forma 	pauperis. 	Doc. 	8. 	The
undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of February 17, 2026, and
warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the order likely would result
in this case being dismissed. Id. at 5.
To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the order dated January
16, 2026, and has not responded to the 14-day show-cause order entered
on March 2, 2026. Doc. 9.
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);
Case 5:26-cv-00007-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
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. Co.,
370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962). Furthermore, a district court may dismiss a
civil action when a plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee or demonstrate that
he qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); N.D.
Fla. Loc. R. 5.3; Wilson v. Sargent, 313 F.3d 1315, 1320–21 (11th Cir.
2002).
Plaintiff has failed to comply with two court orders, failed to comply
with the Local Rules, failed to prosecute this action, and failed to pay the
filing 	fee. 	Plaintiff 	has 	offered 	no 	excuse 	for 	his 	failures 	and,
consequently, has not shown good cause. Accordingly, dismissal of this
action is appropriate.
C ONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	stated 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this case without prejudice.
2. 	DIRECT The clerk of court to close this case file.
Case 5:26-cv-00007-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
At Panama City, Florida, this 30th day of March, 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The 	District 	Court 	referred 	this 	case 	to 	the
undersigned 	to 	make 	recommendations 	regarding
dispositive matters. 	See 	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 	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. A party must serve a copy of any
objections on all other parties. A party who fails to
object to this 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 5:26-cv-00007-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 03/30/26 Page 4 of 4