Carl Taylor, Jr. v. Executive Director at the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-10384
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
CARL TAYLOR, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 5:21-cv-00155-RH-MJF
USCA11 Case: 22-10384 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 09/01/2023 Page: 1 of 6

-- 1 of 6 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-10384
____________________
Before NEWSOM , GRANT, and E DMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Carl Taylor, Jr., proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
sua sponte dismissal without prejudice* of Taylor’s pro se complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed Taylor’s com-
plaint for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with court
orders. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
In July 2021, Taylor filed this civil action against Terry
Rhodes, Executive Director at the Florida Department of Highway
Safety and Motor Vehicles. Briefly stated, Taylor alleged that
Rhodes violated his due process rights on 18 February 2021, when
Rhodes sent Taylor a letter indicating that Taylor had a suspended
driver’s license, tag, and registration. According to Taylor -- be-
cause he has no driver’s license in any state and has no Florida fish-
ing and hunting license -- Rhodes’s letter violated Taylor’s due pro-
cess rights under Florida law. As relief, Taylor sought $3 trillion in
damages.
A magistrate judge granted Taylor leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Thereafter, the magistrate judge conducted a frivolity re-
view pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). On 8 October 2021, the
* Generally speaking, an involuntary dismissal without prejudice constitutes
a final order for purposes of appeal. See Justice v. United States, 6 F.3d 1474,
1481 (11th Cir. 1993).
USCA11 Case: 22-10384 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 09/01/2023 Page: 2 of 6

-- 2 of 6 --

22-10384 Opinion of the Court 3
magistrate judge determined that Taylor’s complaint was deficient
for several reasons, including for failure to comply with the district
court’s local rules and for failure to state a plausible claim for relief
under federal pleading standards. The magistrate judge ordered
Taylor to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies (or
to file a notice of voluntary dismissal) on or before 29 October. The
magistrate judge cautioned Taylor that failure to comply with the
court’s order “likely will result in dismissal of this action.” Taylor
filed no response to the 8 October order.
On 9 November, the magistrate judge ordered Taylor to
show cause -- on or before 30 November -- why he failed to comply
with the 8 October order. The magistrate judge warned that fail-
ure to comply with the order would likely result in dismissal of the
action. Once again, Taylor filed no response.
On 9 December 2021, the magistrate judge issued a report
and recommendation (“R&R”). The magistrate judge recom-
mended that the district court dismiss Taylor’s action without prej-
udice for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with court
orders. Taylor filed no objections to the R&R. On 5 January 2022,
the district court adopted the R&R and dismissed the case without
prejudice. The district court later denied Taylor’s motion to reo-
pen. Taylor then filed a notice of appeal.
We review a district court’s dismissal for failure to comply
with court orders or for failure to prosecute under an abuse-of-dis-
cretion standard. See Foudy v. Indian River Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 845
F.3d 1117, 1122 (11th Cir. 2017); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533,
USCA11 Case: 22-10384 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 09/01/2023 Page: 3 of 6

-- 3 of 6 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-10384
1535 (11th Cir. 1985). Although we construe liberally pro se plead-
ings, pro se litigants must still conform to procedural rules. See Albra
v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007).
“The court’s power to dismiss a cause is an inherent aspect
of its authority to enforce its orders and insure prompt disposition
of law suits.” Dynes v. Army Air Force Exch. Serv., 720 F.2d 1495, 1499
(11th Cir. 1983) (quotation omitted). The district court has the au-
thority to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to obey a court
order or for lack of prosecution. See Betty K. Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V
Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005).
Generally speaking, a dismissal made without prejudice con-
stitutes no abuse of discretion because the affected party may refile
his civil action. See Dynes, 720 F.2d at 1499 (concluding that -- be-
cause the case was dismissed without prejudice -- the district court
abused no discretion by dismissing for failure to file a court-ordered
brief ). Unlike a dismissal with prejudice, dismissal without preju-
dice requires no showing of willful noncompliance with court or-
ders or a determination that a lesser sanction would not suffice.
Compare Betty K Agencies, Ltd., 432 F.3d at 1337-38 (describing a dis-
missal with prejudice as “an extreme sanction” requiring precise
findings by the district court of a clear pattern of delay or willful-
ness), with Dynes, 720 F.2d at 1499 (concluding that a dismissal with-
out prejudice constituted no abuse of discretion even in response
to a single violation).
As an initial matter, Taylor’s appellate brief consists only of
a copy of his July 2021 complaint. Construed liberally, Taylor’s
USCA11 Case: 22-10384 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 09/01/2023 Page: 4 of 6

-- 4 of 6 --

22-10384 Opinion of the Court 5
“brief ” includes no substantive argument challenging either of the
district court’s two reasons for dismissing Taylor’s civil action: fail-
ure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s orders. So,
Taylor has forfeited the argument that the district court erred in
dismissing without prejudice his complaint. See United States v.
Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (concluding
that issues not presented properly on appeal are deemed forfeited
and will not be addressed absent extraordinary circumstances);
Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014)
(“[A]n appellant abandons a claim when he either makes only pass-
ing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without
supporting arguments and authority.”); Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d
870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (“While we read briefs filed by pro se liti-
gants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are
deemed abandoned.” (citation omitted)).
Even if Taylor had not forfeited arguments on appeal, we
likely would not conclude that the district court abused its discre-
tion in dismissing Taylor’s complaint without prejudice. At the
time of dismissal, Taylor had failed to comply with both the 8 Oc-
tober order to file either an amended complaint or a notice of vol-
untary dismissal and the 9 November show-cause order. Both or-
ders warned Taylor expressly that failure to comply would likely
result in dismissal of his action. Nor did Taylor object to the mag-
istrate judge’s recommendation that his case be dismissed for fail-
ure to prosecute and for failure to comply with court orders. Given
Taylor’s silence in response to the district court’s orders, the district
court seems to have acted within its authority to dismiss sua sponte
USCA11 Case: 22-10384 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 09/01/2023 Page: 5 of 6

-- 5 of 6 --

6 Opinion of the Court 22-10384
Taylor’s action for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply
with court orders.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-10384 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 09/01/2023 Page: 6 of 6

-- 6 of 6 --