LOCUS v. PANAMA CITY FLORIDA POLICE DEPARTMENT et al

Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
CURTIS E. LOCUS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:26-cv-69-MW-MJF
PANAMA CITY FLORIDA POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The District Court should dismiss this civil action without prejudice
because Plaintiff failed to comply with a court order and failed to pay the
initial partial filing fee.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee when he initiated this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. On March 9, 2026, the clerk of the
court docketed as a complaint a letter Plaintiff had submitted. See Docs.
1, 4. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Doc. 2.
Case 5:26-cv-00069-MW-MJF Document 7 Filed 04/14/26 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
On March 10, 2026, the clerk of the court sent to Plaintiff its
standard “notice to pro se litigants.” Doc. 3.
On March 17, 2026, the undersigned denied Plaintiff’s motion for
leave 	to 	proceed 	in 	forma 	pauperis 	without 	prejudice 	and 	ordered
Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or file a complete application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 4. The undersigned also ordered Plaintiff
to file an amended complaint. Id. The undersigned imposed a compliance
deadline of April 16, 2026, and warned Plaintiff that failure to comply
with the order likely would result in this case being dismissed. Id.
On March 27, 2026, the Bay County Jail returned the “notice to pro
se litigants” because Plaintiff no longer resided at the Bay County Jail.
Likewise, on April 10, 2026, the Bay County Jail returned the
undersigned’s order of March 17, 2026, because Plaintiff no longer
resided at the Bay County Jail. Doc. 6.
Plaintiff has not complied with the order dated March 17, 2026, and
has not provided to the clerk of the court his current address.
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.
Case 5:26-cv-00069-MW-MJF Document 7 Filed 04/14/26 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
Sheriff’s Off., 845 F.3d 1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted);
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 when a
plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Wilson v.
Sargent, 313 F.3d 1315, 1320–21 (11th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff has offered no
excuse for his failures and, consequently, has not shown good cause.
Accordingly, dismissal of this case is appropriate.
C ONCLUSION
Based 	on 	the 	foregoing, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this civil action without prejudice for Plaintiff’s
failure to comply with court orders.
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of court to close this case file.
At Panama City, Florida, this 14th day of April 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 make recommendations regarding dispositive
matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Objections to
Case 5:26-cv-00069-MW-MJF Document 7 Filed 04/14/26 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
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-00069-MW-MJF Document 7 Filed 04/14/26 Page 4 of 4