Odalis Cruz and Antonio R. Cruz v. Alachua County Sheriff’s Office, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
• Decided: February 26, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-00022
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION ODALIS CRUZ, and ANTONIO R. CRUZ, Plaintiffs,

vs. Case No. 1:26cv22-RH-MAF ALACHUA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al., Defendants. _____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, initiated this case by filing a civil rights complaint, ECF No. 1, and simultaneously paying the filing fee. The complaint was reviewed to determine if the pleading was sufficient for

service. See ECF No. 3. Because it was not, Plaintiffs were provided an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Id. In particular, Plaintiffs were required to file a proper statement of facts

which set forth the basis for the claims asserted against all five of the named Defendants. Id. As presented, Plaintiffs included only a “consolidated legal memorandum” which did not identify the actions or Page 2 of 4 omissions of each named Defendant, nor did Plaintiffs state when any particular event occurred. ECF No. 1 at 14. Furthermore, Plaintiffs were

informed that as pro se litigants, they could not assert claims on behalf of a “family member” instead of claims which were personal to the Plaintiffs. ECF No. 3. Thus, Plaintiffs were advised that they must obtain representation by an attorney and ensure that a notice of appearance of

counsel was filed if they wanted to litigate the claims asserted. Alternatively, Plaintiffs were directed to file an amended complaint by February 24, 2026. Id. As of this date, nothing further has been received,

despite the warning provided that a recommendation would be made to dismiss this case if they failed to comply. It appears that Plaintiffs have abandoned this litigation. “A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own

docket, may dismiss a case sua sponte” when a Plaintiff “fails to prosecute or” otherwise comply with a court order. See Ciosek v. Ashley, No. 3:13cv147-RV-CJK, 2015 WL 2137521, at *2 (N.D. Fla. May 7, 2015). The

Court has inherent power “to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution” as courts must necessarily have authority “to manage their own affairs . . . . ” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 1389, 8 L. Ed. Case No. 1:26cv22-RH-MAF Page 3 of 4 2d 734 (1962) (quoted in Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)); see also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1. Furthermore,

the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has noted that “[w]hile 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). It is

within this Court’s discretion and “inherent authority” to dismiss a case for failing to comply with a court Order. Smith v. Bruster, 424 F. App’x 912, 915 (11th Cir. 2011). Here, Plaintiffs were forewarned and have not

responded to a Court Order. Dismissal is appropriate. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED for

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court Order. IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on February 26, 2026.

S/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No. 1:26cv22-RH-MAF Page 4 of 4 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not control. If a party fails to object to the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case No. 1:26cv22-RH-MAF