MICHAEL EUGENE WILKS, JR.
v.
DEPUTY WATTS, CORPORAL HIMMEL, AND HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This is a civil rights action filed pro se by Michael Eugene Wilks, Jr. against law enforcement officers. The District Court dismissed the case without prejudice for the plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders requiring him to file a proper in forma pauperis form and an amended complaint complying with federal rules of procedure within the prescribed deadline.
The district court properly dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(b) and its inherent authority for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute. Dismissal was an appropriate remedy where the plaintiff had been forewarned of the consequences and failed to meet the deadline.
[1] A district court may dismiss a case under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders.
[2] A district court may dismiss a case pursuant to its inherent authority to protect the orderly administration of justice.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A district court may dismiss a case under Rule 41(b), for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders or federal rules, and a court may dismiss a case, pursuant to its inherent authority, to "protect the orderly administration of justice and to preserve the dignity of the tribunal."”
Establishes the legal basis for dismissal under both Rule 41(b) and inherent authority
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff filed a civil action without paying the filing fee and simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On September 9, 2025, the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Inherent Power To Dismiss cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff Michael Eugene Wilks, Jr., proceeding without an attorney, filed this action without paying the filing fee. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 2.
On September 9, 2025, this Court denied the motion without prejudice and gave Plaintiff until September 25, 2025, to file the completed proper form to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs. Dkt. 3. That same day, Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint with careful instructions to follow the federal rules of procedure and to use a form for § 1983 claims. Dkt. 4. The order provided that if an amended complaint was not filed consistent with the order by September 25, 2025, the case would be subject to dismissal. Id.
A district court may dismiss a case under Rule 41(b), for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders or federal rules, and a court may dismiss a case,
pursuant to its inherent authority, to "protect the orderly administration of justice and to preserve the dignity of the tribunal." Kleiner v. First Nat'l Bank of Atlanta, 751 F. 2d 1193, 1209 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764–65 (1980)); see also Johnson v. DuBose, 806 F. App'x 927, 928 (11th Cir. 2020) (“A district court may sua sponte dismiss a case under the authority of either Rule 41(b) or the court's inherent power to manage its docket.").
"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). This is especially true when the dismissal is without prejudice, such that the plaintiff can re-file. See, e.g., Dynes v. Army Air Force Exch. Serv., 720 F. 2d 1495, 1499 (11th Cir. 1983) (holding that dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to file a court-ordered brief was not an abuse of discretion).
Twenty days have passed since the due date for the filings. Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's orders (Dkts. 3, 4) and failed to prosecute this case. Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close the case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on October 15, 2025.
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO: Plaintiff, pro se 2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moon v. Lanson Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989)
- Kleiner v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Atlanta, 751 F.2d 1193 (11th Cir. 1985)
- Dynes v. Army AIR Force Exch. Serv., 720 F.2d 1495 (11th Cir. 1983)