LEE MANUEL COLSON, JR.
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 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.
The court recommended dismissal of the civil action without prejudice due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders and pay the required initial partial filing fee.
[1] Federal courts possess an inherent power to dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with a court order.
[2] A district court may dismiss a civil action when a plaintiff fails to pay the required filing fee.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Federal courts possess an inherent power to dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with a court order.”
Establishes the legal authority for dismissal based on non-compliance with court orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, a federal prisoner, initiated a civil action and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, with an order to pay an initial partia…
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 Failure To Pay Filing Fee cases and more on FLexlaw
The undersigned recommends that the District Court dismiss this civil action without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to comply with two court orders and failed to make the initial partial filing fee payment required by federal statute.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, initiated this civil action on February 27, 2025, by filing a letter complaining about the conditions of his confinement at the Federal Correctional Institution, Tallahassee. Doc. 1. The clerk of the court docketed Plaintiff's letter as a complaint. See Docs.
Page 1 of 4
1, 3. Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Docs. 6, 7.
On October 15, 2025, the undersigned granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered Plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $63.00. Doc. 13. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of November 14, 2025, and warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the order likely would result in this case being dismissed. Id.
To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the order dated October 15, and has not responded to the 14-day show cause order entered on December 2, 2025, Doc. 14.
DISCUSSION
"Federal courts possess an inherent power to dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with a court order.” Foudy v. Indian River Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 845 F. 3d 1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted); N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1. A district court also may dismiss a civil action when a plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Wilson v. Sargent, 313 F. 3d 1315, 1320-21 (11th Cir. 2002).
Page 2 of 4
Plaintiff has failed to comply with two court orders and has failed to make the required initial partial filing fee payment or demonstrate his inability to do so. Plaintiff has offered no excuse for his failures and, consequently, has not shown good cause. Accordingly, dismissal of this case is appropriate. See, e.g., Hyde v. Sheriff, Walton Cnty., 2023 WL 5814443 (11th Cir. Sept. 8, 2023) (affirming dismissal of case based on prisoner-plaintiffs failure to comply with a court order; prisoner failed to pay initial partial filing fee despite access to the requisite funds and was given repeated warnings by the district court that failure to pay could result in dismissal of the case).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. DISMISS this civil action without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders.
2. DIRECT the clerk of court to close this case file.
At Panama City, Florida, this 6th day of January, 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank Michael J. Frank United States Magistrate Judge
Page 3 of 4
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate judge to make recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within fourteen days of the date of the report and recommendation. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court's internal use only. A party must serve a copy of any objections on all other parties. A party who fails to object to this report and recommendation waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Page 4 of 4
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Foudy v. Indian River Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 845 F.3d 1117 (11th Cir. 2017)
- Wilson v. Sargent, 313 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2002)