FREITAS v. BAY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE et al

Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
MICHAEL JONATHAN FREITAS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-273-AW/MJF
BAY COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Because Plaintiff has violated the Local Rules, has failed to comply
with three court orders, and has failed to prosecute this action, the
District Court should dismiss this action without prejudice.
B ACKGROUND
On October 2, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint on the court-approved form or a notice of voluntary
dismissal. Doc. 5. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of
November 17, 2025, and warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply with
the order likely would result in dismissal of this action. Plaintiff did not
comply with that order.
Case 5:25-cv-00273-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5
On December 1, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to explain
and show cause for his failure to comply with the undersigned’s order of
October 2, 2025. Doc. 5. The undersigned imposed a deadline of December
15, 2025, to comply and again warned Plaintiff that the failure to comply
with the order likely would result in dismissal of this action. Plaintiff has
not complied with that order.
After the undersigned’s order to show cause was docketed, the clerk
of the court docketed Plaintiff’s “emergency notice of intent to file § 1983
and Request for Acceptance of Form.” Doc. 7. Besides being more than
two weeks late, Plaintiff provided only conclusory statements that he was
unable to submit the complaint on the court-approved form. Id. Plaintiff
requested that he be permitted to file his complaint within 24-48 hours.
Id. 	The 	clerk 	of 	the 	court 	also 	docketed 	Plaintiff’s 	first 	amended
complaint, Doc. 8. Plaintiffs proposed first amended complaint was not
on the court approved form.
On December 30, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show
cause why this case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to
comply with two court orders and failure to comply with the Local Rules.
The undersigned also ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that
Case 5:25-cv-00273-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
complies 	with 	the 	undersigned’s 	order 	of 	October 	2, 	2025. 	The
undersigned 	imposed 	a 	compliance 	deadline 	of 	January 	13, 	2026.
Plaintiff has not complied with that order.
D ISCUSSION
“Although a pro se litigant’s filings are construed liberally, they
must comply with procedural rules.” McNair v. Johnson, 143 F.4th 1301,
1307 (11th Cir. 2025) (citations omitted). “A district court has discretion
to adopt local rules that are necessary to carry out the conduct of its
business.” Frazier v. Heebe, 482 U.S. 641, 645 (1987); see also 28 U.S.C. §
2071; Fed. R. Civ. P. 83(a). “[L]ocal rules generally reflect the courts’
traditional ‘authority to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the
orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d
1253, 1267–68 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Hoffmann–La Roche, Inc. v.
Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 172–73 (1989)).
Rule 5.7(A) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court of
the Northern District of Florida instructs a pro se litigant bringing suit
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to use the court’s standardized civil-rights
complaint form:
A party not represented by an attorney must file any of
these only on a form available without charge from the Clerk
Case 5:25-cv-00273-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5
or on the District’s website: a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, or a
complaint in a civil-rights case. A case is a civil-rights case if
it asserts a claim under the United States Constitution or a
statute creating individual rights, including, for example, 42
U.S.C. § 1983 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court need
not—and ordinarily will not—consider a petition, motion, or
complaint that is not filed on the proper form.
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.7(A).
“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); 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 prosecute.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632
(1962). Here, Plaintiff violated the Local Rules insofar as he has not used
the court-approved complaint form. Plaintiff also has failed to comply
with three court orders. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for his
failures. Accordingly, dismissal of this civil action is appropriate.
CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Local Rules, has
failed to comply with court orders, and has failed to prosecute this action,
Case 5:25-cv-00273-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 01/26/26 Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5
the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this action without prejudice.
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 26th day of January, 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 	address 	preliminary 	matters 	and to 	make
recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),
(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 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. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 5:25-cv-00273-AW-MJF Document 10 Filed 01/26/26 Page 5 of 5