BEN v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY CORRECTIONS et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
JULIUS D. BEN, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No.: 3:25cv1507/AW/ZCB
ESCAMBIA COUNTY
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action.
On September 15, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed
in forma pauperis (Doc. 6), assessed an initial partial filing fee (IPFF) in
the 	amount 	of 	$103.70 	under 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 1915(b)(1), 	and 	directed
Plaintiff to pay the IPFF within twenty-one days. 	(Doc. 7). 	The Court
also instructed Plaintiff that his “[f]ailure to pay the initial partial filing
fee as instructed may result in dismissal of this action.” (Id. at 4).
Plaintiff did not pay the IPFF within the time allowed.1 Therefore,
on January 29, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, within
1 Plaintiff submitted a portion of the IPFF—$16.92—on October 20, 2025.
(Doc. 9). 	Plaintiff later paid another $14.39 towards the IPFF on
November 19, 2025. (Doc. 12). The Court sua sponte granted extensions
to pay the remaining unpaid balance of the IPFF after each of these
Case 3:25-cv-01507-AW-ZCB Document 17 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 3

2
fourteen days, why the case should not be dismissed for his failure to
comply with an order of the Court. 	(Doc. 15). 	The time for compliance
with 	the 	show 	cause 	order 	has 	expired, 	and 	Plaintiff 	has 	neither
responded to the order nor paid the remainder of the IPFF.2 	Thus,
dismissal is warranted.3
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be
DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with
an order of the Court. 	See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (authorizing dismissal
when “a party fails to comply with an applicable rule or court order”); see
partial 	payments. 	(Docs. 	10, 	13). 	Plaintiff has neither 	submitted
additional payments nor otherwise responded since the Court’s 60-day
extension order on November 20, 2025. (Doc. 13).
2 Plaintiff also has not submitted his inmate account statements as
previously ordered. 	(Doc. 13 at 2) (ordering Plaintiff to submit inmate
account statements for October – December of 2025 if he did not pay the
remaining balance of his IPFF).
3 	The Court is aware that its most recent orders were returned as
undeliverable. (See Docs. 14, 16). This does not excuse Plaintiff’s failure
to comply with orders because it is his obligation to ensure the Court
maintains an accurate mailing address. 	(Doc. 3 at 2-3). 	See Gilbert v.
Daniels, 725 F. App’x 789, 792 (11th Cir. 2018) (affirming district court’s
dismissal where plaintiff failed to update the court of his address change,
which 	prevented 	him 	from 	complying 	with 	court 	orders); 	see 	also
Washington v. Escambia Cnty. Jail, No. 3:22cv4842, 2022 WL 4486079,
at *1-2 (N.D. Fla. June 6, 2022) (dismissing complaint where pro se
plaintiff failed to pay an initial partial filing fee and failed to ensure the
Court 	maintained 	his 	current 	mailing 	address), 	adopted, 	2022 	WL
4486984 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2022).
Case 3:25-cv-01507-AW-ZCB Document 17 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 3

3
also Frith v. Curry, 812 F. App’x 933, 935 (11th Cir. 2020) (affirming
dismissal where prisoner failed to pay the initial partial filing fee and
failed to respond to a magistrate judge’s order to show cause as to why
the filing fee had not been paid).
At Pensacola, Florida, this 23rd day of February 2026.
/s/
Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice to the Parties
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 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. Rule 3-1; 28
U.S.C. § 636.
Case 3:25-cv-01507-AW-ZCB Document 17 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 3