Court Opinion

ID: 9826961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:01:04.6451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:10:41.468099
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10384    Document: 12-1     Date Filed: 09/01/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10384
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       CARL TAYLOR, JR.,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
       OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 5:21-cv-00155-RH-MJF
USCA11 Case: 22-10384         Document: 12-1        Date Filed: 09/01/2023         Page: 2 of 6

       2                         Opinion of the Court                       22-10384

                               ____________________

       Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Carl Taylor, Jr., proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
       sua sponte dismissal without prejudice* of Taylor’s pro se complaint
       under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed Taylor’s com-
       plaint for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with court
       orders. No reversible error has been shown; we aﬃrm.
              In July 2021, Taylor ﬁled this civil action against Terry
       Rhodes, Executive Director at the Florida Department of Highway
       Safety and Motor Vehicles. Brieﬂy stated, Taylor alleged that
       Rhodes violated his due process rights on 18 February 2021, when
       Rhodes sent Taylor a letter indicating that Taylor had a suspended
       driver’s license, tag, and registration. According to Taylor -- be-
       cause he has no driver’s license in any state and has no Florida ﬁsh-
       ing and hunting license -- Rhodes’s letter violated Taylor’s due pro-
       cess rights under Florida law. As relief, Taylor sought $3 trillion in
       damages.
             A magistrate judge granted Taylor leave to proceed in forma
       pauperis. Thereafter, the magistrate judge conducted a frivolity re-
       view pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). On 8 October 2021, the

       * Generally speaking, an involuntary dismissal without prejudice constitutes
       a final order for purposes of appeal. See Justice v. United States, 6 F.3d 1474,
       1481 (11th Cir. 1993).
USCA11 Case: 22-10384       Document: 12-1      Date Filed: 09/01/2023      Page: 3 of 6

       22-10384                Opinion of the Court                           3

       magistrate judge determined that Taylor’s complaint was deﬁcient
       for several reasons, including for failure to comply with the district
       court’s local rules and for failure to state a plausible claim for relief
       under federal pleading standards. The magistrate judge ordered
       Taylor to ﬁle an amended complaint correcting the deﬁciencies (or
       to ﬁle a notice of voluntary dismissal) on or before 29 October. The
       magistrate judge cautioned Taylor that failure to comply with the
       court’s order “likely will result in dismissal of this action.” Taylor
       ﬁled no response to the 8 October order.
              On 9 November, the magistrate judge ordered Taylor to
       show cause -- on or before 30 November -- why he failed to comply
       with the 8 October order. The magistrate judge warned that fail-
       ure to comply with the order would likely result in dismissal of the
       action. Once again, Taylor ﬁled no response.
              On 9 December 2021, the magistrate judge issued a report
       and recommendation (“R&R”). The magistrate judge recom-
       mended that the district court dismiss Taylor’s action without prej-
       udice for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with court
       orders. Taylor ﬁled no objections to the R&R. On 5 January 2022,
       the district court adopted the R&R and dismissed the case without
       prejudice. The district court later denied Taylor’s motion to reo-
       pen. Taylor then ﬁled a notice of appeal.
              We review a district court’s dismissal for failure to comply
       with court orders or for failure to prosecute under an abuse-of-dis-
       cretion standard. See Foudy v. Indian River Cty. Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce, 845
       F.3d 1117, 1122 (11th Cir. 2017); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533,
USCA11 Case: 22-10384      Document: 12-1       Date Filed: 09/01/2023     Page: 4 of 6

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  22-10384

       1535 (11th Cir. 1985). Although we construe liberally pro se plead-
       ings, pro se litigants must still conform to procedural rules. See Albra
       v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007).
               “The court’s power to dismiss a cause is an inherent aspect
       of its authority to enforce its orders and insure prompt disposition
       of law suits.” Dynes v. Army Air Force Exch. Serv., 720 F.2d 1495, 1499
       (11th Cir. 1983) (quotation omitted). The district court has the au-
       thority to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to obey a court
       order or for lack of prosecution. See Betty K. Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V
       Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005).
               Generally speaking, a dismissal made without prejudice con-
       stitutes no abuse of discretion because the aﬀected party may reﬁle
       his civil action. See Dynes, 720 F.2d at 1499 (concluding that -- be-
       cause the case was dismissed without prejudice -- the district court
       abused no discretion by dismissing for failure to ﬁle a court-ordered
       brief ). Unlike a dismissal with prejudice, dismissal without preju-
       dice requires no showing of willful noncompliance with court or-
       ders or a determination that a lesser sanction would not suﬃce.
       Compare Betty K Agencies, Ltd., 432 F.3d at 1337-38 (describing a dis-
       missal with prejudice as “an extreme sanction” requiring precise
       ﬁndings by the district court of a clear pattern of delay or willful-
       ness), with Dynes, 720 F.2d at 1499 (concluding that a dismissal with-
       out prejudice constituted no abuse of discretion even in response
       to a single violation).
             As an initial matter, Taylor’s appellate brief consists only of
       a copy of his July 2021 complaint. Construed liberally, Taylor’s
USCA11 Case: 22-10384       Document: 12-1       Date Filed: 09/01/2023      Page: 5 of 6

       22-10384                Opinion of the Court                            5

       “brief ” includes no substantive argument challenging either of the
       district court’s two reasons for dismissing Taylor’s civil action: fail-
       ure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s orders. So,
       Taylor has forfeited the argument that the district court erred in
       dismissing without prejudice his complaint. See United States v.
       Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (concluding
       that issues not presented properly on appeal are deemed forfeited
       and will not be addressed absent extraordinary circumstances);
       Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014)
       (“[A]n appellant abandons a claim when he either makes only pass-
       ing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without
       supporting arguments and authority.”); Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d
       870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (“While we read briefs ﬁled by pro se liti-
       gants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are
       deemed abandoned.” (citation omitted)).
               Even if Taylor had not forfeited arguments on appeal, we
       likely would not conclude that the district court abused its discre-
       tion in dismissing Taylor’s complaint without prejudice. At the
       time of dismissal, Taylor had failed to comply with both the 8 Oc-
       tober order to ﬁle either an amended complaint or a notice of vol-
       untary dismissal and the 9 November show-cause order. Both or-
       ders warned Taylor expressly that failure to comply would likely
       result in dismissal of his action. Nor did Taylor object to the mag-
       istrate judge’s recommendation that his case be dismissed for fail-
       ure to prosecute and for failure to comply with court orders. Given
       Taylor’s silence in response to the district court’s orders, the district
       court seems to have acted within its authority to dismiss sua sponte
USCA11 Case: 22-10384    Document: 12-1     Date Filed: 09/01/2023   Page: 6 of 6

       6                     Opinion of the Court               22-10384

       Taylor’s action for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply
       with court orders.
             AFFIRMED.