ARDAKANI
v.
FLORIDA POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY
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 held that the plaintiff's failure to prosecute the case and comply with court orders warrants dismissal.
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, failed to file a Case Management Report and did not respond to an order to show cause why the case should not be dis…
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 Inherent Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
A district court may dismiss a plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Rule 41(b) or the court’s inherent authority to manage its docket. Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F. 3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). Under Rule 41(b), “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss this action or any claim against it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that a district court may dismiss an action sua sponte for the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his case or obey a court order under Rule 41(b). Betty K
Agencies, Ltd., 432 F. 3d at 1337. Middle District of Florida Local Rule 3.10 provides that a “plaintiff’s failure to prosecute diligently can result in dismissal if the plaintiff in response to an order to show cause fails to demonstrate due diligence and just cause for delay.” M.D. Fla. Local Rule 3.10. Here, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s Order, failed to seek additional time to respond, failed to timely submit a case management report, and failed to demonstrate he has diligently pursued his case or otherwise explained the reason for his delay. The Court’s Order to Show Cause provided Plaintiff with notice and the opportunity to respond, but he has failed to do so. Accordingly, upon consideration, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice.
2. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and deadlines and CLOSE this case. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on August 16, 2022.
Chakenee Tdiarde Mo TL ol wel Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge
Copies furnished to: Mostafa Kamali Ardakani, pro se Counsel of Record