Williams, Kareem v. Deputy Haas et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-cv-80832-ALTMAN
KAREEM ANDRE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPUTY HAAS, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER
Our Plaintiff, Kareem Andre Williams, has filed an amended civil-rights complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 [ECF No. 13]. Williams, now a state prisoner, alleges that the Defendants, who are
officers with the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office (“PBSO”), violated his right to be free from
“excessive use of force” when they “hoisted [him] up and slammed [him] violently into the ground”
and “shackled” his legs when he was a pretrial detainee. Am. Compl. at 7. He also claims that the
Defendants acted deliberately indifferent by maintaining “unsanitary conditions inside” his jail cell—
like leaving “[f]eces and human bod[ily] fluids . . . on the floor, walls, sink, and toilet.” Id. at 8. Williams
seeks $400,000 in “compensatory, punitive, and emotional damages.” Id. at 10.
There’s just one problem: Williams didn’t verify his amended complaint when we ordered him
to do so.1 In directing Williams to amend his complaint, we explained that “a civil-rights complaint
submitted by a pro se prisoner ‘must be signed under penalty of perjury.’” Order to Amend [ECF No.
4] at 2 (first quoting S.D. FLA . L.R. 88.2; and then citing FED . R. C IV . P. 11(a) (“Unless a rule or statute
1 Williams actually filed two amended civil-rights complaints [ECF Nos. 11, 13], but we find that the
later-amended pleading supersedes the first and is therefore the operative pleading. See Dresdner Bank
AG v. M’V Olympia Voyager, 463 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2006) (“An amended pleading supersedes
the former pleading[.]”). In any event, Williams didn’t sign either pleading under the penalty of perjury.
Case 9:25-cv-80832-RKA Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2025 Page 1 of 3

2
specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit.” (emphasis
added))). We told Williams again that his “amended complaint . . . must be signed under the penalty
of perjury[.]” Id. at 10. And we also warned him that his “failure to file the amended complaint . . . in
compliance with this Order shall result in dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute or for failure
to comply with court orders.” Ibid. (citing FED . R. C IV . P. 41(b)).
Since Williams has clearly ignored both our orders and our Local Rules, we now dismiss this
case.2 See Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002) (“Despite construction leniency afforded
pro se litigants, we nevertheless have required them to conform to procedural rules.”); Brutus v. Int’l
Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240–41 (11th Cir. 2009)
(“The court may dismiss a claim if the plaintiff fails to prosecute it or comply with a court order.”);
Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (“While 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.”).
Accordingly, we hereby ORDER AND ADJUDGE that this case is DISMISSED without
prejudice for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with this Court’s orders. See FED . R. C IV .
P. 41(b). This case remains CLOSED.
2 Because Williams’s claims began accruing on March 14, 2025, the statute of limitations on his civil-
rights claim hasn’t expired, which allows him to refile his complaint in a new case. See Am. Compl. at
4 (alleging that the “events giving rise” to his claim “arose . . . on March 14, 2025” (cleaned up)); see
also McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168, 1173 (11th Cir. 2008) (stating that claims brought under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 are “subject to the statute of limitations governing personal injury actions in the state where
the § 1983 action has been brought”); Nazario v. Kissimmee Util. Auth., 2024 WL 5673614, at *2 (M.D.
Fla. Jan. 9, 2024) (Norway, Mag, J.) (recognizing that, “[i]n Florida, the relevant statute of limitations
is two years” for § 1983 claims filed after March 24, 2023 (citing Florida Statute § 95.11(4)(a))).
Case 9:25-cv-80832-RKA Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2025 Page 2 of 3

3
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on December 10, 2025.
ROY K. ALTMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: 	Kareem Andre Williams, pro se
Case 9:25-cv-80832-RKA Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/10/2025 Page 3 of 3