Joseph Ernst v. Secretary of Homeland Security

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: April 17, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-21941
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:26-cv-21941-GAYLES

JOSEPH ERNST,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

Respondent. ____________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court sua sponte. On March 26, 2026, the Court ordered pro se Petitioner Joseph Ernst to “file an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus that is signed by Petitioner under penalty of perjury and complies with Rule 2 by providing adequate specific facts to support the requested grounds for relief.” See [ECF No. 4 at 3]. The Court gave Petitioner until April 15, 2026 to file the Amended Petition. Id. That deadline has now passed, and Petitioner has not filed an Amended Petition as ordered. “A district court has inherent authority to manage its own docket ‘so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991)). Under that authority, the court “may dismiss a claim if” a party “fails to prosecute it or comply with a court order.” See id.; McNair v. Johnson, 143 F.4th 1301, 1306–08 (11th Cir. 2025) (affirming inherent-authority dismissal of pro se plaintiff’s civil rights lawsuit based on failure to follow local rules); cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“If the plaintiff fails to prosecute against it.”). “Whether to dismiss a” petition “for failure to comply with an order of the court is a matter committed to the district court’s discretion.” See Equity Lifestyle, 556 F.3d at 1240 n.14. “A district court need not tolerate defiance of reasonable orders.” /d. at 1241. This includes the failure to comply with a court’s order to amend a habeas petition. See, e.g., Boutwell v. Nagle, 861 F.2d 1530, 1531 (11th Cir. 1988) (noting that a petitioner’s “initial petition was dismissed because” he “failed to comply with an order to amend his complaint to detail the facts” supporting his claim); Sutton v. Inch, No. 20-23156-CV, 2020 WL 6149601, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 20, 2020). “While dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). The Court warned Petitioner in its March 26 Order that “[fJailure to file an adequate Amended Petition by” April 15, 2026 “will result in dismissal without prejudice.” [ECF No. 4 at 3]. That Order was reasonable, and Petitioner failed to timely comply with it. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s March 26 Order. See Equity Lifestyle, 556 F.3d at 1241. 2. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 17th day of April, 2026.

RRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DIS T JUDGE ce: Joseph Ernst 220 607 386 Krome Service Processing Center -2-

Inmate Mail/Parcels 18201 SW 12th Street Miami, FL 33194 PRO SE

Noticing 2241/Bivens US Attorney Email: usafls-2255@usdoj.gov

Noticing INS Attorney Email: usafls-immigration@usdoj.gov