YASHAYAHU v. SAMUELS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
ZAKIYAH RUFFIN YASHAYAHU,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 4:25-cv-518-MW-MAF
KRISTINA SAMUELS,
Defendant.
___________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights
complaint alleging constitutional violations associated with an appeal of her
Leon County eviction proceeding. ECF No. 1. On December 17, 2025, the
Court ordered Plaintiff to correct deficiencies in her complaint no later than
December 31, 2025. ECF No. 4. The deadline passed nearly a month ago
and nothing has been received from Plaintiff. Dismissal is warranted.
The Court previously alerted Plaintiff to several issues with her
complaint, primarily that Defendant Samuels, as the Clerk of Florida’s First
District Court of Appeal, “has absolute immunity from civil actions for entering
or following First DCA orders.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff was ordered to file an
amended complaint or, if she conceded that her claims were barred, a notice
of voluntary dismissal by the December 31, 2025 deadline. Id. Plaintiff was
Case 4:25-cv-00518-MW-MAF Document 5 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
4:25-cv-518-MW-MAF
warned that failure to comply with the Court’s Order would result in a
recommendation of dismissal. Id. at 5.
A trial court has inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure
to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1962). Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for
failure to obey a court order. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 838 (11th
Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989). Furthermore, the Eleventh
Circuit 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.” Id. 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 given an opportunity to file a sufficient amended
complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. She was warned that a
recommendation of dismissal would be entered if she did not comply. As of
this date, Plaintiff has failed to file anything more. Because Plaintiff has failed
to prosecute this case and failed to comply with a court order, dismissal is
appropriate.
For the reasons stated above, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that
this case be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with
Case 4:25-cv-00518-MW-MAF Document 5 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
4:25-cv-518-MW-MAF
a court order.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida on January 26, 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). A copy of the objections shall be served upon
all other parties. A party may respond to another party’s objections
within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. 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(b)(1)(C).
Case 4:25-cv-00518-MW-MAF Document 5 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 3