CRUZ et al v. ALACHUA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
ODALIS CRUZ, and
ANTONIO R. CRUZ,
Plaintiffs,
vs. 	Case No. 1:26cv22-RH-MAF
ALACHUA COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, initiated this case by filing a civil rights
complaint, ECF No. 1, and simultaneously paying the filing fee. The
complaint was reviewed to determine if the pleading was sufficient for
service. 	See ECF No. 3. Because it was not, Plaintiffs were provided an
opportunity to file an amended complaint. 	Id.
In particular, Plaintiffs were required to file a proper statement of facts
which set forth the basis for the claims asserted against all five of the
named Defendants. 	Id. 	As presented, Plaintiffs included only a
“consolidated legal memorandum” which did not identify the actions or
Case 1:26-cv-00022-RH-MAF Document 4 Filed 02/26/26 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
omissions of each named Defendant, nor did Plaintiffs state when any
particular event occurred. ECF No. 1 at 14. Furthermore, Plaintiffs were
informed that as pro se litigants, they could not assert claims on behalf of a
“family member” instead of claims which were personal to the Plaintiffs.
ECF No. 3. Thus, Plaintiffs were advised that they must obtain
representation by an attorney and ensure that a notice of appearance of
counsel was filed if they wanted to litigate the claims asserted.
Alternatively, Plaintiffs were directed to file an amended complaint by
February 24, 2026. 	Id. 	As of this date, nothing further has been received,
despite the warning provided that a recommendation would be made to
dismiss this case if they failed to comply. It appears that Plaintiffs have
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.
Case No. 1:26cv22-RH-MAF
Case 1:26-cv-00022-RH-MAF Document 4 Filed 02/26/26 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
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, Plaintiffs were forewarned and have not
responded to a Court Order. 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 February 26, 2026.
S/ 	Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case No. 1:26cv22-RH-MAF
Case 1:26-cv-00022-RH-MAF Document 4 Filed 02/26/26 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
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. 1:26cv22-RH-MAF
Case 1:26-cv-00022-RH-MAF Document 4 Filed 02/26/26 Page 4 of 4