LORUSSO v. BARTLETT et al

Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
MICHAEL LORUSSO,
Petitioner,
v. 	Case No. 1:25-cv-126-MW/MJF
BRUCE BARTLETT and
STATE ATTORNEY
PINELLAS COUNTY
FLORIDA,
Respondents.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Because Petitioner failed to comply with numerous court orders and
failed to prosecute this action, the District Court should dismiss this
action without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
On May 22, 2025, the undersigned ordered Petitioner to pay the
filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 4. 	The
undersigned explained to Petitioner that a properly completed motion for
leave 	to 	proceed 	in 	forma 	pauperis 	includes 	(1) 	a 	motion 	with 	a
supporting financial affidavit on the court-approved forms; (2) a prisoner
Case 1:25-cv-00126-MW-MJF Document 20 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 7

Page 2 of 7
consent form and a financial certificate signed by an institution official;
and (3) a printout of the transactions in Petitioner’ trust account for the
six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint. Id.
at 3. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of June 23, 2025,
and warned Petitioner that the failure to comply with the order likely
would result in dismissal of this action.
On June 10, 2025, Petitioner submitted a motion for leave to
proceed 	in 	forma pauperis. 	Doc. 	7. 	Despite 	the 	undersigned’s clear
instructions, Petitioner’s motion was deficient because it did not include
the statutorily required inmate trust account or a financial certificate
signed by an institution official.
Consequently, the undersigned denied the motion. Doc. 8. The
undersigned also ordered Petitioner to pay the filing fee or submit a
properly completed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. The
undersigned again explained to Petitioner what constitutes a properly
completed 	motion 	for 	leave 	to 	proceed 	in 	forma 	pauperis. 	The
undersigned provided Petitioner until August 1, 2025, to comply and
warned Petitioner that the failure to comply likely would result in
dismissal.
Case 1:25-cv-00126-MW-MJF Document 20 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 7

Page 3 of 7
On July 10, 2025, Petitioner submitted his second motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 11. Despite the undersigned’s clear
instructions, Petitioner’s motion was deficient because it did not include
the statutorily required inmate trust account, or a financial certificate
signed by an institution official. 	Id. 	Consequently, the undersigned
denied the motion. Doc. 12. The undersigned also ordered Petitioner to
pay the filing fee or submit a properly completed motion for leave to
proceed 	in forma pauperis. 	Id. 	The undersigned again explained to
Petitioner what constitutes a properly completed motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. The undersigned provided Petitioner until
August 25, 2025, to comply and warned Petitioner that the failure to
comply likely would result in dismissal.
On August 21, 2025, Petitioner filed his third motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 14. Despite the undersigned’s clear
instructions, Petitioner’s motion was deficient because it did not include
the required inmate trust account statement or a financial certificate
signed by an institution official. 	Id. 	Consequently, the undersigned
denied the motion. Doc. 15. The undersigned also ordered Petitioner to
pay the filing fee or submit a properly completed motion for leave to
Case 1:25-cv-00126-MW-MJF Document 20 Filed 12/01/25 Page 3 of 7

Page 4 of 7
proceed 	in forma pauperis. 	Id. 	The undersigned again explained to
Petitioner what constitutes a properly completed motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. The undersigned provided Petitioner until
October 10, 2025, to comply and warned Petitioner that the failure to
comply likely would result in dismissal.
On September 15, 2025, Petitioner filed his fourth motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 16. Despite the undersigned’s clear
instructions, Petitioner’s motion was deficient because it was not signed
by petitioner, did not include the statutorily required inmate trust
account, 	and 	did 	not 	include 	a 	financial 	certificate 	signed 	by 	an
institution 	official. 	Id. 	Consequently, 	on 	October 	16, 	2025, 	the
undersigned denied Petitioner motion. Doc. 17. The undersigned also
ordered Petitioner to: (1) show cause for his failure to comply with the
undersigned’s orders; and (2) pay the filing fee or submit a properly
completed 	motion 	for 	leave 	to 	proceed 	in 	forma 	pauperis. 	The
undersigned provided Petitioner until November 17, 2025, to comply and
warned Petitioner that the failure to comply likely would result in
dismissal of this civil action.
Case 1:25-cv-00126-MW-MJF Document 20 Filed 12/01/25 Page 4 of 7

Page 5 of 7
On October 22, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration.
Doc. 18. In his motion for reconsideration, Petitioner asserts that he
complied fully with this court’s orders. Petitioner, however, has not
submitted an institutional printout of his inmate account for the six-
month period immediately preceding the commencement of this suit. See
28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1915(a)(2). 	Nor 	has 	he 	provided 	this 	court 	with 	any
explanation 	as 	to 	why 	he 	cannot 	obtain 	the 	same. 	Therefore, 	the
undersigned denied the motion for reconsideration as Petitioner did not
meet his burden demonstrating this court should reconsider its order
denying the motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
D ISCUSSION
“Federal courts possess an inherent power to dismiss a complaint
for failure to comply with a court order.” Foudy v. Indian River Cnty.
Sheriff’s Off., 845 F.3d 1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted);
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (authorizing the court to dismiss an action, or any
claim within it, “[i]f a party fails to comply with an applicable rule or a
court order”). A district court also may dismiss a civil action sua sponte
for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962). Furthermore, a district court may dismiss
Case 1:25-cv-00126-MW-MJF Document 20 Filed 12/01/25 Page 5 of 7

Page 6 of 7
a civil action where a plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee. Wilson v. Sargent,
313 F.3d 1315, 1320–21 (11th Cir. 2002). Petitioner has failed to comply
with multiple court orders. Petitioner has offered no excuse for his
failures and, 	consequently, has not shown 	good cause. Accordingly,
dismissal of this civil action is appropriate.
CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with court orders and failed to
prosecute this action, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS
that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this action without prejudice.
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 1st day of December 2025.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge 	to 	address 	preliminary 	matters 	and to 	make
recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),
(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to these proposed
findings and recommendations must be filed within
fourteen 	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	the 	report 	and
recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may
Case 1:25-cv-00126-MW-MJF Document 20 Filed 12/01/25 Page 6 of 7

Page 7 of 7
appear 	on 	the 	electronic 	docket 	is 	for 	the 	court’s
internal use only and does not control. An objecting
party must serve a copy of the objections on all other
parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate
judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a
report 	and 	recommendation 	waives 	the 	right 	to
challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th
Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 1:25-cv-00126-MW-MJF Document 20 Filed 12/01/25 Page 7 of 7