STODDARD v. DIXON et al

Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
JOSEPH STODDARD,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:26-cv-2-MCR-MJF
RICKY DIXON, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed because
Plaintiff failed to comply with two court orders and applicable court rules,
and Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, 	a 	Florida 	prisoner, 	commenced 	this 	civil 	action 	on
January 	2, 	2026, 	by 	filing 	a 	pro 	se 	civil-rights 	complaint 	and 	an
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Docs. 1, 2.
Plaintiff’s IFP application was deficient because Plaintiff failed to use the
court-approved forms, failed to provide a prisoner consent form and a
financial certificate signed by a prison official, and failed to attach an
Case 5:26-cv-00002-MCR-MJF Document 6 Filed 03/17/26 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
account printout covering the six-month period immediately preceding
the filing of his complaint. Doc. 4 at 2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2);
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.3.
On January 15, 2026, the undersigned instructed Plaintiff of the
deficiencies in his IFP application and ordered Plaintiff to pay the
$405.00 filing fee or file a new and complete application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis that included a motion on the court-approved
form, supporting affidavit, prisoner consent form and 6-month account
printout. Doc. 4. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of
February 6, 2026 and warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the
order likely would result in this case being dismissed. Id. at 4–5.
To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the order dated February
6, 2026, and has not responded to the 14-day show-cause order entered
on February 20, 2026. Doc. 5.
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
Case 5:26-cv-00002-MCR-MJF Document 6 Filed 03/17/26 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
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. Co.,
370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962). Furthermore, a district court may dismiss a
civil action when a plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee or demonstrate that
he qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); N.D.
Fla. Loc. R. 5.3; Wilson v. Sargent, 313 F.3d 1315, 1320–21 (11th Cir.
2002).
Plaintiff has failed to comply with two court orders and applicable
rules for the Northern District of Florida, failed to prosecute this action,
and failed to pay the filing fee or file a proper motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has offered no excuse for his failures and,
consequently, has not shown good cause. Accordingly, dismissal of this
action is appropriate.
C ONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this civil action without prejudice.
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of court to close this case file.
Case 5:26-cv-00002-MCR-MJF Document 6 Filed 03/17/26 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
At Panama City, Florida, this 17th day of March 2026.
/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 make recommendations regarding dispositive
matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). 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
appear 	on 	the 	electronic 	docket 	is 	for 	the 	court’s
internal use only. A party must serve a copy of any
objections on all other parties. A party who fails to
object to this 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 5:26-cv-00002-MCR-MJF Document 6 Filed 03/17/26 Page 4 of 4