ROGERS v. JUDGE OF THE US DISTICT COURT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
CURTIS ROGERS,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 4:25cv406-RH-MAF
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE,
Defendant.
___________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se Plaintiff Curtis Rogers initiated this case on September 24,
2025, by submitting a civil rights complaint, ECF No. 1. However, Plaintiff
did not pay the filing fee or file a motion requesting leave to proceed with in
forma pauperis status at the time of case initiation. Plaintiff was required to
do one or the other if he wanted to proceed with this case in accordance
with Local Rule 5.3. ECF No. 3.
Plaintiff then submitted an in forma pauperis motion, ECF No. 4, and
an amended complaint, ECF No. 5. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis motion
was insufficient because Plaintiff did not answer all questions within the
financial affidavit and his answers were in conflict. For example, Plaintiff
Case No. 4:25cv406-RH-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00406-RH-MAF Document 8 Filed 11/13/25 Page 1 of 4

indicated he was not employed because of a disability, ECF No. 4 at 3, yet
Plaintiff did not indicate that he received social security disability benefits or
other income. 	Id. at 4. Because the in forma pauperis motion was
insufficient as filed, ruling was deferred. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was provided
another application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and he was
directed to return the completed form no later than November 10, 2025.
Id. 	Plaintiff was also advised to honestly disclose all monthly income and
expenses. 	Id.
Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, ECF No. 7, on November
7. 2025. Plaintiff did not, however, comply with the prior Order and file an
amended in forma pauperis motion. Plaintiff was warned that his failure to
comply with that Order would result in a recommendation of dismissal of
this action. ECF No. 6. Because Plaintiff has not complied after being
warned of the consequences, this case should be dismissed.
“A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own
docket, may dismiss a case sua sponte” when a Plaintiff “fails to prosecute
or” otherwise comply with a court order. 	See Ciosek v. Ashley, No.
3:13cv147-RV-CJK, 2015 WL 2137521, at *2 (N.D. Fla. May 7, 2015). The
Court has inherent power “to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution” as
Page 2 of 4	Case No. 4:25cv406-RH-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00406-RH-MAF Document 8 Filed 11/13/25 Page 2 of 4

courts must necessarily have authority “to manage their own affairs . . . . ”
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 1389, 8 L. Ed.
2d 734 (1962) (quoted in Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d
1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)); see also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1. Furthermore,
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals 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.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). 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, because Plaintiff was forewarned and did not
respond to a Court Order, dismissal is appropriate.
Another reason for dismissal is that Plaintiff’s amended complaint,
ECF No. 7, does not present legible factual allegations, does not
demonstrate when the event or issue took place, and is nonsensical and
frivolous. Plaintiff has not provided factual allegations which support a
federal claim because Plaintiff has not identified a constitutional right which
was violated, a federal statute which was disregarded, or otherwise
demonstrated that he suffered any harm. Furthermore, his request for
Page 3 of 4	Case No. 4:25cv406-RH-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00406-RH-MAF Document 8 Filed 11/13/25 Page 3 of 4

relief - “[t]o bring about change in government ruling and abuse laws to
make slave when their ways are worse” - is not relief that could be granted.
Indeed, it is nonsensical. For all the above stated reasons, this case
should be dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION
In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this
case be DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply
with a Court Order and because Plaintiff’s amended complaint, ECF No. 7,
is frivolous.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on November 13, 2025.
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.
Page 4 of 4	Case No. 4:25cv406-RH-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00406-RH-MAF Document 8 Filed 11/13/25 Page 4 of 4