RICHARDSON v. DANIELS et al

Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
QUANTAN P. RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-172-MW-MJF
JAKE DANIELS, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with three court orders, failed to
comply with the Local Rules, and failed to prosecute this action, the
District Court should dismiss this action without prejudice.
B ACKGROUND
A. 	Failure 	to 	Comply 	with 	Local 	Rule 	5.7(A) 	and 	the
Undersigned’s orders to Amend the Complaint
Rule 5.7(A) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court of
the Northern District of Florida instructs a pro se prisoner bringing suit
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to use the court’s standardized civil-rights
complaint form. Plaintiff, however, commenced this civil rights action
with a complaint that was not on the standardized civil-rights complaint
Case 5:25-cv-00172-MW-MJF Document 15 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 6

Page 2 of 6
form. Doc. 1. Because Plaintiff had not complied with Local Rule 5.7(A),
on October 8, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint on the court-approved form or a notice of voluntary dismissal.
Doc. 9 (citing N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.7(A)). The undersigned imposed a
compliance deadline of November 24, 2025, and warned Plaintiff that the
failure to comply likely would result in dismissal of this civil action. Id.
On November 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “Notice to the Court of
Change of Address and Defendant(s) Retaliation.” Doc. 10. In this notice,
Plaintiff stated he needed additional time to file an amended complaint
in compliance with the undersigned’s order of October 8, 2025. Id. On
December 1, 2025, the undersigned granted Plaintiff’s request. Doc. 11.
The undersigned extended Plaintiff’s compliance deadline to January 2,
2026, and again warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the order
likely would result in dismissal of this civil action. Id. Plaintiff did not
comply with that order.
On January 16, 2026, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show
cause for his failure to comply with the undersigned’s order of October 8,
2025. Doc. 14. The undersigned imposed a deadline of January 30, 2026,
Case 5:25-cv-00172-MW-MJF Document 15 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 6

Page 3 of 6
to comply and again warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with the
order likely would result in dismissal of this action.
Plaintiff has not complied with the undersigned’s order to show
cause.
B. 	Plaintiff’s Failure to Update His Mailing Address
On July 31, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to update his
mailing address with the clerk’s office “[w]ithin SEVEN DAYS of any
change of Plaintiff’s address.” Doc. 4 at 4; see Doc. 3 ¶ 6 (advising Plaintiff
that “[t]throughout this case, you are required to advise the Clerk’s Office
in writing of any change in your mailing address.”). Plaintiff certainly
was aware of this obligation. Doc. 1 at 13 (Plaintiff signed his complaint
after the following statement: “I agree to provide the Clerk’s Office with
changes to my address where case-related papers may be served.”); Doc.
10 (indicating he had been transferred from Union C.I. to Santa Rosa
C.I.).
The undersigned also warned Plaintiff that “the failure to apprise
the clerk of the court timely of any change of address . . . likely will result
in dismissal of this case for failure to comply with an order of this court.”
Doc. 4 at 4; see also Doc. 1 at 13 (Plaintiff signed his name after the
Case 5:25-cv-00172-MW-MJF Document 15 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 6

Page 4 of 6
following statement: “I understand that my failure to keep a current
address on file with the Clerk’s Office may result in the dismissal of my
case.”).
According to the Florida Department of Corrections’ website, on
December 29, 2025, the FDC released Plaintiff from custody. 	Plaintiff
has failed to update his mailing address with the clerk of the court.
D ISCUSSION
“Federal courts possess an inherent power to dismiss a complaint
for failure to comply with a court order” or Local Rule. Foudy v. Indian
River Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 845 F.3d 1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2017) (citations
omitted); McNair v. Johnson, 143 F. 4th 1301, 1308 (11th Cir. 2025)
(“Dismissal without prejudice was an appropriate exercise of the district
court’s inherent authority to manage its docket and enforce the local
rules.”); 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.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962).
Case 5:25-cv-00172-MW-MJF Document 15 Filed 02/09/26 Page 4 of 6

Page 5 of 6
Here, Plaintiff has not complied with the Local Rules insofar as he
has 	failed 	to 	submit 	a 	complaint 	on 	the 	court-approved 	form.
Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with three court orders.
Plaintiff has offered no excuse for his failures and, consequently, has not
shown 	good 	cause. 	Accordingly, 	dismissal 	of 	this 	civil 	action 	is
appropriate.
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this action without prejudice.
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 9th day of February, 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge 	to 	address 	preliminary 	matters 	and to 	make
recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 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 	(14) 	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	the 	report 	and
recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may
Case 5:25-cv-00172-MW-MJF Document 15 Filed 02/09/26 Page 5 of 6

Page 6 of 6
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. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 5:25-cv-00172-MW-MJF Document 15 Filed 02/09/26 Page 6 of 6