RICHARDSON v. BURDETT et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
EDWARD WARNELL RICHARDSON, JR.,
FDOC Inmate No. V41422,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No.: 3:25cv1415/MW/ZCB
M. BURDETT, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff is an inmate of the Florida Department of Corrections
proceeding pro se in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	On
September 16, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis (IFP) and assessed an initial partial filing fee of $12.27.
(Doc. 8). 	Nearly four months later, Plaintiff has failed to pay the initial
partial filing fee. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s case should
be dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the initial partial filing
fee and failure to comply with an order of the Court.
The Court received Plaintiff’s complaint on August 21, 2025. (Doc.
1). 	On September 16, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to
proceed IFP. 	(Doc. 8). 	When the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s motion to
Case 3:25-cv-01415-MW-ZCB Document 16 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 5

2
proceed IFP (Doc. 6), his account statement showed account deposits
sufficient to pay the initial partial filing fee. 	And based on those
statements, the Court assessed an initial partial filing fee of $12.27 in
accordance with the requirements outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). (Doc.
8). The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to pay the initial partial filing
fee “may result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action.” 	(Id. at
3). It also warned Plaintiff that if he spent funds that should have been
forwarded to the Court, “the Court 	may dismiss the case 	for non-
payment.” (Id.).
The Court provided Plaintiff with several extensions to pay the
initial partial filing fee and warned him that his failure to pay the initial
partial filing fee would result in the dismissal of his case. (Docs. 9, 10, 12,
13, 14). 	In the order granting Plaintiff’s latest request for an extension,
the Court told Plaintiff that he would receive no more extensions and that
his “failure to pay the $12.27 initial partial filing fee by [December 26,
2025] will result in a recommendation of dismissal of his case without
further notice.” (Doc. 14 at 1-2).
On December 19, 2025, Plaintiff sent a “Motion to Waive Filing
Fee,” with an updated inmate trust account statement. 	(Doc. 15). 	But
Case 3:25-cv-01415-MW-ZCB Document 16 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 5

3
that inmate account statement shows that Plaintiff had the funds to pay
the initial partial filing fee after the Court ordered him to do so. 	(Id. at
3). 	More specifically, after filing this case, Plaintiff received $70.00 in
deposits to his inmate trust account. 	(Id.). 	And he spent $61.39 at the
canteen. 	(Id. at 3). 	Despite having the funds to pay the $12.27 initial
partial filing fee at various times, Plaintiff made a conscious decision
spend his funds at the canteen.
“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) (cleaned up); N.D. Fla.
Loc. R. 41.1 (authorizing the Court to dismiss an action “[i]f a party fails
to comply with an applicable rule or a court order”). A district court may
also dismiss a civil action where a plaintiff fails to pay the initial partial
filing fee. See Wilson v. Sargent, 313 F.3d 1315, 1320-21 (11th Cir. 2002).
Dismissal 	without 	prejudice 	is 	an 	appropriate 	sanction 	for
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and failure to pay the initial
partial filing fee despite having the funds to do so. 	See Walker v. Powell,
351 F. App’x 384, 386 (11th Cir. 2009) (dismissing prisoner’s complaint
for failure to make partial filing fee payments where prisoner’s account
Case 3:25-cv-01415-MW-ZCB Document 16 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 5

4
statements demonstrated that he used the funds for canteen purchases
instead of filing fee payments); see also Lumbert v. Ill. Dep’t of Corr., 827
F.2d 257, 260 (7th Cir. 1987) (“A suit not worth $7.20 to an inmate who
could pay this fee is unlikely to be worth the time of the courts. 	If the
inmate thinks that a more worthwhile use of his funds would be to buy
peanuts and candy (two of the items that, the record shows, Lumbert has
purchased from the prison commissary) than to file a civil rights suit, he
has demonstrated an implied evaluation of the suit that the district court
is entitled to honor.”); Zuniga-Mejia v. Godwin, 2024 WL 1068887, at *6
(N.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2024) (“Because Plaintiff’s non-payment was caused
by his own actions [by spending funds on canteen items], the District
Court should dismiss this action.”).
As another judge on this Court once explained: “All litigants must
make decisions about how to spend their money when litigation is
contemplated. 	Plaintiff’s decision to spend money in the canteen rather
than pursue his claim in this Court is one that the Court is entitled to
uphold.” 	Briand v. State of Fla., No. 4:06cv104, 2006 WL 1890189, at *1
(N.D. 	Fla. 	July 	10, 	2006). 	Accordingly, 	it 	is 	respectfully
Case 3:25-cv-01415-MW-ZCB Document 16 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 5

5
RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice1
for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the initial partial filing fee despite his ability
to do so and failure to comply with an order of the Court.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 12th day of January 2026.
/s/
Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice to the Parties
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 and does not control.
An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections on 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.
1 The events underlying Plaintiff’s complaint occurred on July 5, 2025, so
the statute of limitations would not bar Plaintiff from refiling his claims
at a later date.
Case 3:25-cv-01415-MW-ZCB Document 16 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 5