Spataru v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al
| Valentin Spataru |
| Jane Guard, John Manager, Alvaro Castillo and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. |
| 4:2020cv10103 |
| September 4, 2020 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| K Michael Moore |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 22, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon sua sponte examination of the record. On September 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed the Complaint. #1 . On the same day, Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis. #3 . Because Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis, the Complaint was subject to screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e). On September 9, 2020, this Court entered an Order dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim under 1915(e), administratively closing the case, denying Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as moot, and instructing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by September 29, 2020. #7 . Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint on September 29, 2020. #8 . Thus, on October 1, 2020, the Court reopened the case and ordered Plaintiff to either pay the required filing fee or request the Court to reopen his prior Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by October 21, 2020. 9 . To date, Plaintiff has neither paid the required filing fee nor requested the Court to reopen his prior Motion as ordered, and the time to do so has now passed. A district court has the authority to dismiss an action with or without prejudice for failure to prosecute or obey a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Eades v. Alabama Dep't of Human Res., 298 F. App'x 862, 864 (11th Cir. 2008) (concluding that the district court acted within its discretion in sua sponte dismissing a former employee's employment discrimination suit for failure to prosecute). The court's power to dismiss is an inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its orders and insure prompt disposition of lawsuits. See Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985). "The legal standard to be applied under Rule 41(b) is whether there is a 'clear record of delay or willful contempt and a finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice.'" Id. And, "[g]enerally, where, as here, the litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion." See Lewis v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 739 F. App'x 585, 586 (11th Cir. 2018). Here, Plaintiff was ordered to pay the required filing fee or request the reopening of his prior Motion on or before October 21, 2020. Additionally, the Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to respond to the Court's Order may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute and obey the Court's Orders. 9 . Therefore, because Plaintiff has ignored the Court's Order and failed to diligently prosecute his case, the Court finds that a lesser sanction would not suffice. Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Complaint #1 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court is INSTRUCTED to CLOSE this case. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 10/22/2020. (tgr)
|
|
Filing 9
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon sua sponte review of the docket. On September 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed the Complaint. #1 . On the same day, Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis. #3 . Because Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis, the Complaint was subject to screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e). On September 9, 2020, this Court entered an Order dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim under 1915(e), administratively closing the case, denying Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as moot, and instructing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by September 29, 2020. #7 . The Court stated that it would re-open the case upon Plaintiff filing an amended complaint. Id. at 3. Plaintiff has since timely filed his amended complaint #8 , however, he has not paid the required filing fee or filed a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Amended Complaint, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Clerk of Court shall REOPEN this case. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee, or request that the Court reopen his prior Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on or before October 21, 2020. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this matter for failure to prosecute and failure to obey court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Lewis v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 739 F. Appx 585, 586 (11th Cir. 2018). Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 10/1/2020. (tgr)
|
| Filing 8 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Alvaro Castillo, Jane Guard, John Manager, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Doug McMillon, Gregory B. Penner, filed by Valentin Spataru. (Attachments: #1 Appendix)(ebz) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT. The Clerk of Court is INSTRUCTED to administratively CLOSE this case. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 9/9/2020. See attached document for full details. (mgh)
|
| Filing 6 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction. Document Filed in Wrong Case; Civil cover sheet at #1 -1 restricted and docket text modified. Civil Cover Sheet refiled in correct case # _20cv23727___. (cds) Modified text and to add document link on 9/9/2020 (asl). |
| Filing 5 Consent by Pro Se Litigant (Non-Prisoner) Valentin Spataru to receive Notices of Electronic Filing at email address: [email protected], [email protected] (cds) |
| Filing 4 MOTION for Referral to Volunteer Attorney Program by Valentin Spataru. (cds) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Valentin Spataru. (cds) |
| Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Chief Judge K. Michael Moore. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (cds) |
| Filing 1 Complaint pursuant to 42 USC 1983 against Alvaro Castillo, Jane Guard, John Manager, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. Filing fee $ 400.00. IFP Filed, filed by Valentin Spataru.(cds) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/8/2020: #1 (RESTRICTED IMAGE) Civil Cover Sheet- Not related to case) (cds). Attachment security Modified on 9/8/2020 (cds). Modified text on 9/9/2020 (asl). |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
