ANDERSON v. PISTRO

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
TERIA L. ANDERSON,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 4:25cv255/TKW/MAL
WARDEN PISTRO,
Respondent.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Teria L. Anderson initiated this case by filing an unsigned, unsworn
petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking sentencing credits
under the First Step Act. ECF No. 2. On June 16, 2025, the Court directed her to (1)
file a signed and sworn amended petition and two service copies thereof, and (2) pay
the $5.00 filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 4.
The order also noted the possibility that Petitioner’s request for relief was premature
under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g)(1)(A).1 Anderson eventually filed an amended petition
and paid the filing fee. ECF Nos. 6, 8.
1 Prisoners are not eligible to apply their FSA time credits until they have earned time credits in
an amount “equal to the remainder of their imposed term of imprisonment.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3624(g)(1)(A). Anderson referenced a total of 780 unapplied time credits. ECF No. 2 at 7. Her
earliest release date of July 18, 2029 (see FSA Time Credit Assessment p. 4, ECF No. 2 at 29) was
approximately 4 years away. Four years (1460 days) is much longer than the 780 unapplied credits,
making Anderson ineligible for application of credits because her earned time credits were less
than the remainder of her imprisonment.
Case 4:25-cv-00255-TKW-MAL Document 10 Filed 10/30/25 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
The amended petition provided no details about Anderson’s claim or the relief
she was seeking Therefore, on August 19, 2025, the Court directed her to file a
second amended petition. ECF No. 7. Anderson was instructed to comply within
thirty (30) days, and she was warned that a failure to timely respond to a Court Order
could result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. She did not timely file
a second amended petition.
On September 29, 2025, the Court entered an order directing Anderson to
show cause why this case should not be dismissed for her failure to prosecute or
failure to comply with a Court order. ECF No. 9. Although she was directed to
comply by October 14, 2025, to date, Anderson has not responded.
A trial court has inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to
prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1962). Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to obey a
court order, typically upon motion of the defendant. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d
835, 838 (11th Cir. 1989) (citing cases). Rule 41.1 of the Local Rules of the Northern
District of Florida also authorizes the court to impose sanctions, up to and including
dismissal, for failure to comply with a rule or court order. Thus, because Anderson
has failed to comply with Court orders necessary for the continuation of this case,
the petition should be dismissed without prejudice.
Case 4:25-cv-00255-TKW-MAL Document 10 Filed 10/30/25 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:
1. Petitioner Anderson’s amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
ECF No. 6, be DISMISSED without prejudice for her failure to comply with an
order of the Court.
2. The clerk be directed to close the case file.
DONE on October 30, 2025.
s/ Midori A. Lowry
Midori A. Lowry
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The case was referred to a magistrate judge for the issuance of all preliminary
orders and any recommendations to the district court regarding dispositive matters.
See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within
fourteen (14) 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 its objections upon 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 4:25-cv-00255-TKW-MAL Document 10 Filed 10/30/25 Page 3 of 3