JONES v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
TREMAIN A. JONES,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:25cv2481-LC-HTC
ESCAMBIA COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSION,
Defendant.
____________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Tremain A. Jones, an inmate serving an eleven-month sentence at the
Escambia County Jail, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a civil
rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining about the conditions of
his confinement at the Jail. 	Doc. 1. 	On December 17, 2025, the Court issued an
order explaining to Plaintiff that his complaint failed to state a claim and giving him
until January 7, 2026, to file a notice of voluntary dismissal or an amended
complaint. Doc. 6. When Jones did not timely respond, the Court issued an order
on January 15, 2026, giving Jones until January 29, 2026, to comply or show cause
why he could not. Doc. 7. The Court warned Jones that if he failed to comply his
case would be dismissed and the matter closed. To date, Jones has failed to comply
with the December 17, 2025, or January 15, 2026, Orders or submit any additional
filings.
Case 3:25-cv-02481-LC-HTC Document 8 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
Case No. 3:25cv2481-LC-HTC
A district court may dismiss a plaintiff’s claims sua sponte pursuant to either
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) or the court’s inherent authority to manage its
docket. 	Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962); Coleman v. St. Lucie Cnty.
Jail, 433 F. App’x 716, 718 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Betty
K Agencies, Ltd. V. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)). 	In
particular, Rule 41(b) allows for the involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s claims
where he has failed to prosecute those claims, comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure or local rules, or follow a court order. 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also
Coleman, 433 F. App’x at 718. Additionally, a district court’s “power to dismiss is
an inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its orders and ensure prompt disposition
of lawsuits.” 	Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir.
2006) (quoting Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983)).
Based on the foregoing, dismissal of this case is appropriate. Id. (“The court
may dismiss an action sua sponte under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)] for
failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”) (citations omitted); Moon v.
Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (“[D]ismissal upon disregard of an
order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse
of discretion.”) (citations omitted).
Case 3:25-cv-02481-LC-HTC Document 8 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
Case No. 3:25cv2481-LC-HTC
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
1. This case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff’s failure
to prosecute and comply with the orders of the Court.
2. The clerk be directed to close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 9 th day of February, 2026.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-02481-LC-HTC Document 8 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 3