PANDER v. WARDEN FCI TALLAHASSEE

Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
ASHLEY JUSTINE PANDER,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 4:25cv355/MCR/MAL
WARDEN FCI TALLAHASSEE,
Respondent.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Ashley Justine Pander initiated this case by filing a petition for writ
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 claiming she was improperly deemed
ineligible for First Step Act sentencing credits due to a non-violent felony
conviction.1 ECF No. 2. She seeks restoration and application of these credits and
injunctive relief directing the Bureau of Prisons to update its “violent offender”
classification policies. Id. at 7. Petitioner admits she did not exhaust her
administrative remedies, but she claims this is because she never received a response
to her BP-9, and if she files a BP-10 without it, the BP-10 will be rejected. Id. at 3.
1 Most recently, Petitioner was convicted in Western District of Texas Case 3:24cr431 of being a
felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). This charge
also resulted in a violation of supervised release, as Petitioner was still on supervision after having
been convicted of transporting illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324 in the District of New
Mexico, Case 2:21cr1590. Her supervision had been transferred to the Texas court. W.D. Tex.
Case 3:24cr1145. None of Petitioner’s offenses of conviction appear to render her ineligible to
earn FSA credits under 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D).
Case 4:25-cv-00355-MCR-MAL Document 7 Filed 10/30/25 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
By regulation, however, if an inmate does not receive a response within the time
allotted at any level of the grievance process, the inmate may consider the absence
of a response to be a denial at that level. See C.F.R. § 542.18.
On August 19, 2025, the undersigned entered an order directing Petitioner to
(1) pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis with
supporting documentation and (2) provide two service copies of her § 2241 petition
or submit $9.00 for the clerk of court to make the copies for her. ECF No. 4.
Petitioner was instructed to comply on or before September 19, 2025, and she was
warned that failure to timely comply with an order of the court would result in a
recommendation that this case be dismissed. She paid the filing fee, but she
submitted neither the service copies of her petition nor payment for the clerk to make
the copies for her by the September 19, 2025, deadline.
On September 29, 2025, the Court issued an order directing Petitioner to show
cause, in writing, by October 14, 2025, why this case should not be dismissed due
to her failure to comply with the Court’s order regarding the provision of service
copies. ECF No. 6. She was again warned that failure to timely respond to the
Court’s order would result in a recommendation of dismissal of this case.
Notwithstanding this admonition, Petitioner still has not responded.
Case 4:25-cv-00355-MCR-MAL Document 7 Filed 10/30/25 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
A trial court has inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to
prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1962). Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to obey a
court order, typically upon motion of the defendant. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d
835, 838 (11th Cir. 1989) (citing cases). Rule 41.1 of the Local Rules of the Northern
District of Florida also authorizes the court to impose sanctions, up to and including
dismissal, for failure to comply with a rule or court order. Thus, because Petitioner
has failed to comply with Court orders necessary for the continuation of this case,
the petition should be dismissed without prejudice.
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:
1. Petitioner’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No. 2, be
DISMISSED without prejudice for her failure to comply with an order of the Court.
2. The clerk be directed to close the case file.
DONE on October 30, 2025.
s/ Midori A. Lowry
Midori A. Lowry
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-00355-MCR-MAL Document 7 Filed 10/30/25 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The case was referred to me for the issuance of all preliminary orders and any
recommendations to the district court regarding dispositive matters. See N.D. Fla.
Loc. R. 72.2(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); 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 its objections upon 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. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 4:25-cv-00355-MCR-MAL Document 7 Filed 10/30/25 Page 4 of 4