[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-12270

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cv-60922-JIC

RAYMOND ANTHONY HANNA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

CARLOS REBOLLO, 

MARK SPIESER, 

PERRY THURSTON, 

DAVID MAX, et al.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(March 30, 2015)

Case: 14-12270 Date Filed: 03/30/2015 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Raymond Anthony Hanna appeals pro se from the district court’s sua sponte

dismissal of his case for noncompliance with the court’s order to show cause why 

the case should not be closed for Hanna’s failure to pay the filing fee, move to 

proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise demonstrate why he should not be 

required to pay the fee. On appeal, Hanna appears to challenge the district court’s 

order closing the case and denying his motion for the appointment of counsel.

We review the dismissal of a lawsuit for failure to comply with the rules of 

the court for an abuse of discretion. Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 

F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a 

court may dismiss a case when the plaintiff fails to comply with procedural rules or 

a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A federal district court has the inherent power 

to dismiss a case sua sponte under Rule 41(b). Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 

U.S. 32, 48–49, 111 S.Ct. 2123 (1991). Although we liberally construe pro se

pleadings, pro se litigants are nonetheless required to conform their pleadings to 

procedural rules. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007).

Hanna filed a lawsuit against the State of Florida and eight individual 

defendants alleging deprivations of various constitutional rights in violation of 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. He moved for an order appointing counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

Case: 14-12270 Date Filed: 03/30/2015 Page: 2 of 4 
3

1915(e)(1). Because Hanna had neither paid the filing fee nor moved to proceed in 

forma pauperis, the district court issued an order for Hanna to show cause why the 

case should not be closed. The order stated that 

by May 9, 2014, Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE why the Court should 

not close this case due to Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee. 

Instead of filing a show-cause response, Plaintiff may pay the filing 

fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis by May 9, 2014. 

. . . Should Plaintiff fail to meet the May 9, 2014, deadline, the Court 

will close this case. 

Order to Show Cause, Apr. 24, 2014 (DE 6). 

On April 28, 2014, Hanna filed a “Motion to Show Cause File Response for 

Fee’s and Cost,” which the district court construed as a response to the show-cause 

order. The largely unintelligible motion provided no explanation for Hanna’s 

failure to pay the filing fee. The next day the district court closed the case. A 

week after the case was closed, Hanna moved in the district court to proceed in 

forma pauperis. Before any action was taken on the motion, Hanna filed a notice 

of appeal.

Upon review of the record and consideration of Hanna’s brief, we affirm. In 

the show-cause order, the district court provided Hanna with three options: show 

cause why the case should not be dismissed, pay the filing fee, or submit a motion 

to proceed in forma pauperis. Hanna elected to pursue the first option. But 

because his response failed to show cause why his case should not be dismissed, 

the district court acted within its discretion by closing the case. See Betty K 

Case: 14-12270 Date Filed: 03/30/2015 Page: 3 of 4 
4

Agencies, 432 F.3d at 1337; Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Once the court decided to close 

the case, it properly denied Hanna’s motion for the appointment of counsel as moot 

because the case was no longer pending.1 Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

 

1 Hanna’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, filed after the district court closed the case, has

not been ruled upon and thus is not before us on appeal. 

Case: 14-12270 Date Filed: 03/30/2015 Page: 4 of 4