[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-12134

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-20439-UU

WILLIE ALBERT SMITH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

COLONEL CLEMONS,

SGT. FIGUROA,

et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

 (December 26, 2013)

Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 13-12134 Date Filed: 12/26/2013 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Previously this Court vacated and remanded the district court’s dismissal of 

Willie Albert Smith’s civil rights complaint against correctional officers at 

Everglades Correctional Institution. Smith v. Clemons, 465 F. App’x 835 (11th 

Cir. 2012). Upon remand the district court dismissed Smith’s complaint on 

different grounds. Now Smith, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his 

complaint as well as a motion we will construe as filed pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 59(e). Smith contends that the district court abused its discretion 

by dismissing his suit because the court did not find that (1) his failure to comply 

with the court order was willful or contumacious, or that (2) lesser sanctions would 

have been insufficient. For the reasons below, we again vacate and remand.

After Smith obtained an entry of default against four of the defendants, the 

district court ordered him to submit proof of his claimed damages. Smith failed to 

do so by the due date, but did submit two additional motions for default that 

included affidavits signed by him claiming the amount of damages. The district 

court then gave Smith until March 18, 2013 to show cause why the action should 

not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, stating Smith had failed to comply with 

the court’s earlier order to submit proof of damages. On March 22, 2013, the 

district court dismissed Smith’s suit. On April 11, 2013, Smith filed his Rule 59(e) 

motion, attaching documents including one date-stamped March 15, 2013 titled 

Case: 13-12134 Date Filed: 12/26/2013 Page: 2 of 4 
3

“Response to Order to Show Cause” that Smith argued was not filed because of a 

problem with the prison mailroom. The court denied the motion.

We review the dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with a court

order for an abuse of discretion. Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & 

Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 n.14 (11th Cir. 2009). The district 

court has the inherent authority to manage its own docket in order “to achieve the 

orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Id. at 1240 (internal quotation mark 

omitted). The court can dismiss a claim if the plaintiff fails to prosecute it or if the 

plaintiff does not comply with a court order. Id. The district court is not required 

to “tolerate defiance of reasonable orders.” Id. at 1241.

Nevertheless, the district court’s discretion to impose sanctions on a party 

who fails to adhere to court rules and orders is not unlimited. Dismissal with 

prejudice is improper “unless the district court finds a clear record of delay or 

willful conduct and that lesser sanctions are inadequate to correct such conduct.” 

Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 483 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks 

omitted); see also Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1339 

(11th Cir. 2005) (“Our case law has articulated with crystalline clarity the outer 

boundary of the district court’s discretion in these matters: dismissal with prejudice 

is plainly improper unless and until the district court finds a clear record of delay 

or willful conduct and that lesser sanctions are inadequate to correct such 

Case: 13-12134 Date Filed: 12/26/2013 Page: 3 of 4 
4

conduct.”). “[F]indings satisfying both prongs of our standard are essential before 

dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.” Betty K Agencies, Ltd., 432 F.3d at 1339. 

Mere negligence or confusion does not justify a finding of willful misconduct. 

Zocaras, 465 F.3d at 483. 

In many ways this case parallels the Betty K case. There, as here, the party 

alleged to have failed in filing the necessary documents conceded that to be the 

case, although in that case they never tried to file with the court, as Smith claims

he did. There, as here, the district court failed to specifically find that lesser 

sanctions would not suffice. Also there, as here, the district court did not identify 

in its order a “willful or contumacious disregard for court rules.” Betty K, 432 

F.3d at 1335. Thus, for the same reasons we were “compelled” to vacate in Betty 

K, see id. at 1340, we are compelled to do so here.

The district court abused its discretion by not making the requisite findings 

to dismiss Smith’s complaint for failure to comply with a court order, as it did not 

find that Smith had acted willfully or that lesser sanctions were insufficient. On 

this record, we vacate and remand the district court’s order dismissing the 

complaint. In light of this ruling, we need not address Smith’s appeal of the denial 

of his Rule 59(e) motion. 

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Case: 13-12134 Date Filed: 12/26/2013 Page: 4 of 4