YASHAYAHU v. CLERK OF COURT ADMINISTRATION et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
ZAKIYAH RUFFIN YASHAYAHU,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 4:25-cv-519-AW-MAF
CLERK OF COURT
ADMINISTRATION, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights
complaint alleging due process violations by the Leon County Clerk of Court
and Leon County Sheriff for issuing and enforcing a judicially ordered writ of
eviction. ECF No. 1. On December 18, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to
correct deficiencies in her complaint or file a notice of voluntary dismissal no
later than January 2, 2026. ECF No. 4. The deadline passed three weeks
ago and nothing has been received from Plaintiff. Dismissal is warranted.
The Court previously alerted Plaintiff that Defendants, “have absolute
immunity from civil actions for entering or following court orders.” Id. at 2.
Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint or, if she conceded that
her claims were barred, a notice of voluntary dismissal by the January 2,
2026 deadline. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the
Case 4:25-cv-00519-AW-MAF Document 5 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
4:25-cv-519-AW-MAF
Court’s Order would result in a recommendation of dismissal. Id. at 3.
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
a court order.
Case 4:25-cv-00519-AW-MAF Document 5 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
4:25-cv-519-AW-MAF
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-00519-AW-MAF Document 5 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 3