WASHINGTON
v.
WANG
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the Plaintiff's motion to appeal in forma pauperis because the appeal was not taken in good faith and lacked merit.
Plaintiff filed a motion to appeal in forma pauperis after her case was dismissed for failure to prosecute or follow court orders. The Magistrate Judg…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Good Faith Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before the Court upon Plaintiff Cindy Elaine Washington's ("Plaintiff") Affidavit of Indigency (Doc. 53 (the “Motion")), which this Court construes as a motion to appeal in forma pauperis. Magistrate Judge Robert M. Norway submitted a Report (Doc. 58 (the “Report”)) recommending that the Court deny the Motion. Plaintiff has filed an objection to the Report (Doc. 59 (the “Objection")), and Defendants Pat Wang, Christopher W. Conway, Lasanje Hollinger, Marc Fisher, Deana Jackson, Adriene Jackson, Natasha Mina, Dial America, and Health First (collectively, "Defendants”) have filed a response to the Objection (Doc. 60).
Upon an independent de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with the analysis and conclusions set forth in the Report. More specifically, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Norway's finding that Plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith as the appeal lacks merit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Sun v. Forrester, 939 F. 2d 924, 925 (11th Cir. 1991). As such, the Motion is due to be denied.
A court's order dismissing a case for a plaintiffs failure to prosecute the case or to follow the court's orders is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Taylor v. Exec. Dir. at Fla. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, No. 22- 10384, 2023 WL 5664169 at *1 (11th Cir. Sept. 1, 2023). “The court's power to dismiss a cause is an inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its orders and insure prompt disposition of law suits [sic].” Id. at *2 (quoting Dynes v. Army Air Force Exch. Serv., 720 F. 2d 1495,1499 (11th Cir. 1983)). Moreover, “[g]enerally speaking, a dismissal made without prejudice constitutes no abuse of discretion because the affected party may refile his [or her] civil action.” Id. (citing Dynes, 720 F. 2d at 1499). For this reason, such a dismissal "requires no showing of willful noncompliance with court orders or a determination that a lesser sanction would not suffice." Id.; see also Dynes, 720 F. 2d at 1499 (holding that the district court's dismissal without prejudice of plaintiff's case for plaintiff's failure to comply with a court order was proper despite the fact that the case was not one that “involve[d] a series of violations of court rules or pretrial orders").
The Court acted within its inherent authority by dismissing the case without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with its Orders. (See Docs. 3, 44, 46, 49).
Further, although the Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiffs Objection, the Court agrees with Defendants that the Objection does not provide an adequate basis to overrule the Report. (See Docs. 59, 60).
Therefore, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation filed December 20, 2023 (Doc. 58) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order; and
2. Plaintiff's Motion to Appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 53) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 28, 2024.
PAUL G. BYRON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Washington v. Wang, 2023 WL 5664169 (M.D. Fla. 2024)…A court's order dismissing a case for a plaintiffs failure to prosecute the case or to follow the court's orders is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Taylor v. Exec. Dir. at Fla. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, No. 22- 10384, 2023 WL 5664169 at *1 (11th Cir. Sept. 1, 2023). “The court's power to dismiss a cause is an inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its orders and insure prompt disposition of law suits [sic].” Id. at *2 (quoting Dynes v. Army Air Force Exch. Serv., 720 F.2d 1…
-
Charminique So v. Johnson (S.D. Fla. 2025)…should be dismissed without prejudice – for failure to prosecute and due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's October 30, 2025 Order [DE 5]. See, e.g., Taylor v. Exec. Dir. at Fla. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, No. 22-10384, 2023 WL 5664169, at *2 (11th Cir. Sept. 1, 2023) (“The court's power to dismiss a cause is an inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its orders and insure prompt disposition of lawsuits. The district court has the authority to dismiss an action sua sponte for…
-
Neo Davis v. United States Postal Serv. (S.D. Fla. 2025)…te a claim on which relief may be granted. Second, Plaintiff's failure to comply with that Order also independently warrants dismissal without prejudice. See, e.g., Taylor v. Exec. Dir. at Fla. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, No. 22-10384, 2023 WL 5664169, at *2 (11th Cir. Sept. 1, 2023) (“The court's power to dismiss a cause is an inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its orders and insure prompt disposition of lawsuits. The district court has the authority to dismiss an action sua sponte for…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- SUN v. Forrester, 939 F.2d 924 (11th Cir. 1991)
- Washington v. Wang, 2023 WL 5664169 (M.D. Fla. 2024)