SAMUEL ENGELHARDT
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL.
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.
Samuel Engelhardt, proceeding pro se, sued the State of Florida under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for civil rights violations. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute after Engelhardt failed to respond to motions to dismiss and failed to comply with a show cause order.
The case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The plaintiff's failure to comply with the show cause order, despite being warned of dismissal consequences, constitutes abandonment of the case and warrants dismissal under M.D. Fla. R. 3.10.
[1] A plaintiff's failure to diligently prosecute a case can result in dismissal if the plaintiff, in response to an order to show cause, fails to demonstrate due diligence a…
[2] A pro se plaintiff's failure to comply with a court order to show cause why a case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute can result in dismissal of the case.
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 plaintiffs failure to prosecute diligently can result in dismissal if the plaintiff in response to an order to show cause fails to demonstrate due diligence and just cause for delay.”
Establishes the legal standard for dismissal under M.D. Fla. R. 3.10 based on failure to prosecute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Samuel Engelhardt filed a second-amended complaint under § 1983 against multiple defendants. Defendants moved to dismiss on August 13 and Au…
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 Violation Of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter comes before the Court on sua sponte review of the file. Plaintiff Samuel Engelhardt, who is proceeding pro se, sues multiple Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his civil rights. (Doc. 39). On August 13 and August 26, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss the secondamended complaint. (Docs. 43, 44). Plaintiff failed to timely respond to these motions. So on September 18, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause by October 2, 2025, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 48). And it cautioned him that failure to comply with the Order would result in dismissal without further notice. (Id.). Plaintiff failed to comply. It thus appears Plaintiff has abandoned this case, so it is dismissed.¹ See M.D. Fla. R. 3.10 (“A plaintiffs failure to prosecute diligently can result in dismissal if the plaintiff in response to an order to show cause fails to demonstrate due diligence and just cause for delay.”).
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to deny all pending motions as moot, terminate any deadlines, and close the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on October 8, 2025.
Sheri Polster Rappell
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
[fn 1]: Although Defendants have indicated Plaintiff is now in custody (Doc. 45) and perhaps not receiving the Court's Orders, this does not excuse Plaintiff. It is his responsibility to maintain an updated address with the Court. See Guide for Proceeding Without a Lawyer, p. 15 (Feb. 10, 2022) (“If you change your name, phone number, or address, you must update your information with the court."); see also Edwards v. Monmany, No. 2:19-CV-711-SPC-NPM, 2022 WL 2291298, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 23, 2022) (“Every party is responsible for providing the Court with an address and keeping it updated.").