DANIELS v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
ROY O. DANIELS,
Petitioner,
v. 	Case No. 4:25-cv-348-MCR-MJF
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned recommends that the District Court dismiss this
case without prejudice because Petitioner failed to comply with three
court orders and applicable court rules.
BACKGROUND
Roy Daniels, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this civil
action on August 15, 2025, by filing a document titled “Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus & Mandamus Combined.” Doc. 1. Daniels’s petition
maintained that Daniels was “being Illegally Detained in Prison,” Doc. 1
at 1, and that his criminal cases “should’ve been dropped,” Id. at 14.
Daniels’s petition was not on the Northern District’s § 2254 petition
form, as required by the Local Rules for the Northern District of Florida
Case 4:25-cv-00348-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 11/18/25 Page 1 of 7

Page 2 of 7
(“Local Rules”) and the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts (“Section 2254 Rules”). See N.D. Fla. Loc.
R. 5.7(A) (requiring that pro se petitions for habeas corpus relief be filed
on 	the 	Northern 	District’s 	form); 	see 	also 	Section 	2254 	Rule 	2(d)
(requiring habeas petitioners to use the standard form prescribed by local
district-court rule).
In addition, Daniels’s petition challenged judgments from more
than one state court: (1) Daniels’s judgment of conviction in Broward
County Circuit Court Case No. 1996-CF-19118, see Doc. 1 at 1–5; and (2)
Daniels’s judgment of conviction in Taylor County Circuit Court Case No.
2023-CF-76, see Doc. 1 at 6–8, Doc. 1-1. This violated Section 2254 Rule
2(e) (“A petitioner who seeks relief from judgments of more than one state
court must file a separate petition covering the judgment or judgments
of each court.”).
A. 	The Undersigned’s Order Dated August 19, 2025
On August 19, 2025, the undersigned ordered Petitioner to file an
amended petition on the Northern District’s § 2254 petition form and to
confine his petition to the judgment of only one state court. Doc. 4. The
undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of September 18, 2025, and
Case 4:25-cv-00348-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 11/18/25 Page 2 of 7

Page 3 of 7
warned Daniels that failure to comply with the order likely would result
in this case being dismissed. Id. The clerk of court mailed Daniels the §
2254 petition form. Id. (docket text).
In response, Daniels sought a 60-day extension of time. Doc. 5.
Daniels complained about the medical care at his prison, and alleged that
he had been denied a civil-rights complaint form, his tablet, pens and
envelopes. Id.
B. 	The Undersigned’s Order Dated September 24, 2025
On September 24, 2025, the undersigned found the Daniels failed
to establish good cause for a 60-day extension, because (1) Daniels did
not require a civil-rights complaint form or a tablet in order to complete
the § 2254 form the clerk mailed him; and (2) the fact that Daniels filed
and mailed his “Petition for Order of Continuance” demonstrated that he
had access to writing supplies and envelopes. Doc. 6.
Nevertheless, 	the 	undersigned 	extended 	Daniel’s 	deadline 	to
comply with the August 19 order to October 20, 2025. The clerk of court
mailed Daniels another § 2254 petition form. Doc. 6 (docket text).
Case 4:25-cv-00348-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 11/18/25 Page 3 of 7

Page 4 of 7
In response, Daniels filed a civil-rights complaint. Doc. 7. Daniels
complained that prison officials failed to provide him with a 6-month
account printout. Id.
C. 	The Undersigned’s Order Dated October 29, 2025
On October 29, 2025, the undersigned ordered Daniels to show
cause why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with
the 	August 	19 	and 	September 	24 	orders. 	Doc. 	8. 	The 	undersigned
emphasized 	to Daniels 	that 	he was 	not 	ordered 	to file an account
printout. Rather, he was ordered to file an amended habeas petition
on the Northern District’s § 2254 form that was limited to the
judgment of only one state court. Id.
The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of November 12,
2025, and ordered Daniels to include with his response an amended
habeas petition on the Northern District’s § 2254 form that challenged
the judgment of only one state court. See Doc. 8.
Daniels has filed a response to the show-cause order. Doc. 9.
Daniels asserts that “the Original Bases for my Writ of Habeas Corpus
(& Mandamus)” is the following:
The basis for the whole case itself [is] Broward’s Corruptions
(Issue 	#1), 	Taylor’s 	Corruptions 	(Issue 	#3), 	& 	D.O.C.’s
Case 4:25-cv-00348-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 11/18/25 Page 4 of 7

Page 5 of 7
Corruptions (Issue #2). ALL REVOLVED AROUND ISSUE
#4! FLORIDA’S BEING ILLEGALLY RUN AS A BLACK
OPP’S STATE!!.
Doc. 9 at 2. Daniels also seeks leave to amend the civil-rights complaint
he filed earlier in this case. Doc. 10.
It is apparent from Daniels’s response that he has no intention of
complying with the undersigned’s orders to file an amended habeas
petition on the court form, and that Daniels instead would like to initiate
a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
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
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 comply with applicable court rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b);
Pond v. Braniff Airways, Inc., 453 F.2d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 1972) (a district
court may exercise the power to dismiss actions for failure to comply with
Case 4:25-cv-00348-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 11/18/25 Page 5 of 7

Page 6 of 7
local rules sua sponte);1 Olivares v. Warden, USP Coleman I, 786 F. App’x
994, 	994–95 	(11th 	Cir. 	2019) 	(dismissing 	habeas 	petition 	because
petitioner failed to comply with district court’s local rules despite notice
and order requiring compliance).
Daniels has failed to comply with three court orders, the Local
Rules, and the Section 2254 Rules. Daniels’s explanation for his failure
to comply indicates that he no longer desires to pursue a habeas action
under § 2254, and instead wants to pursue relief under § 1983. That is
Daniels’s prerogative.2 To do so, however, Daniels must initiate a new
civil action under a new case number, because a civil-rights action is an
entirely separate cause of action with a different filing fee.
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en
banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of
the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to close of business on
September 30, 1981.
2 Daniels is warned, however, that “habeas corpus is the appropriate
remedy for state prisoners attacking the validity of the fact or length of
their confinement.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 490 (1973).
Case 4:25-cv-00348-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 11/18/25 Page 6 of 7

Page 7 of 7
1. 	DISMISS this case without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure
to comply with court orders and applicable court rules; and
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of court to close this case and to mail
Daniels the Northern District’s civil-rights complaint form for use by pro
se prisoners, and the Northern District’s form application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.
At Panama City, Florida, this 18th day of November, 2025.
/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 4:25-cv-00348-MCR-MJF Document 11 Filed 11/18/25 Page 7 of 7