MICHAEL AARON BASS
v.
FRANKLIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, ET AL.
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 recommended dismissal of the case because the plaintiff failed to prosecute and comply with a court order.
[1] A pro se plaintiff's complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
[2] A court may dismiss an action for failure to pay the filing fee.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own docket, may dismiss a case sua sponte when a Plaintiff "fails to prosecute or" otherwise comply with a court order.”
Establishes the legal basis for courts to dismiss cases for failure to prosecute or comply with orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff initiated a civil rights case but failed to pay the filing fee or file an in forma pauperis motion. The court granted an extension for t…
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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(B)(2) cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff, a jail detainee proceeding pro se, sought to initiate a case by submitting a civil rights complaint, ECF No. 1, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or file an in forma pauperis motion at the time of case initiation as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and Local Rule 5.3, an Order was entered as a courtesy to Plaintiff, ECF No. 3, giving him until December 22, 2025, to correct that deficiency. Plaintiff was advised that if he did not pay the $405 filing fee or submit an in forma pauperis status motion, a recommendation would be made to dismiss this case. ECF No. 3.
As of this date, Plaintiff has not complied, nor has he filed a motion requesting an extension of time to do so. It appears that Plaintiff has abandoned this litigation.
"A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own docket, may dismiss a case sua sponte” when a Plaintiff "fails to prosecute or" otherwise comply with a court order. See Ciosek v. Ashley, No. 3:13cv147-RV-CJK, 2015 WL 2137521, at *2 (N.D. Fla. May 7, 2015). The Court has inherent power “to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution” as courts must necessarily have authority “to manage their own affairs . . . .” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 1389, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1962) (quoted in Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F. 3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)); see also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1. Furthermore, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has noted that “[w]hile dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion." Moon v. Newsome, 863 F. 2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). It is within this Court's discretion and “inherent authority" to dismiss a case for failing to comply with a court Order. Smith v. Bruster, 424 F. App'x 912, 915 (11th Cir. 2011). Here Plaintiff was forewarned and did not respond to
Case No. 4:25cv479-AW-MAF
a clear and direct Court Order. ECF No. 3. Because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case, dismissal is appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court Order.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on January 8, 2026.
S/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the Court's internal use only and does not control. If a party fails to object to the Magistrate Judge's findings or recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court's order based on the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case No. 4:25cv479-AW-MAF
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Rogers v. U.S. Dist. Court Judge (N.D. Fla. 2025)…sed. "A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own docket, may dismiss a case sua sponte” when a Plaintiff "fails to prosecute or" otherwise comply with a court order. See Ciosek v. Ashley, No. 3:13cv147-RV-CJK, 2015 WL 2137521, at *2 (N.D. Fla. May 7, 2015). The Court has inherent power “to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution” as Case No. 4:25cv406-RH-MAF Page 2 of 4 ---PAGE 3--- Case 4:25-cv-00406-RH-MAF Document 8 Filed 11/13/25 Page 3 of 4 courts must…1 / 2
-
Smith v. Desantis (N.D. Fla. 2025)…ned this litigation. "A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own docket, may dismiss a case sua sponte” when a Plaintiff "fails to prosecute or" otherwise comply with a court order. See Ciosek v. Ashley, No. 3:13cv147-RV-CJK, 2015 WL 2137521, at *2 (N.D. Fla. May 7, 2015). The Court has inherent power “to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution” as courts must necessarily have authority “to manage their own affairs . . . .” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S. Ct. 1386,…1 / 2
-
Grisales-Basto v. Knight (N.D. Fla. 2025)…7/25 Page 2 of 3 "A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own docket, may dismiss a case sua sponte” when a Plaintiff "fails to prosecute or" otherwise comply with a court order. See Ciosek v. Ashley, No. 3:13cv147-RV-CJK, 2015 WL 2137521, at *2 (N.D. Fla. May 7, 2015). The Court has inherent power “to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution” as courts must necessarily have authority “to manage their own affairs . . ..” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 1…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (U.S. 1962)
- Moon v. Lanson Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989)