Opinion
Case No. 8:11-cv-839-T-30TBM
06-11-2012
ORDER
THIS matter is before the Court sua sponte upon a review of the case file. On May 4, 2012, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to file a third amended complaint on or before June 4, 2012 (see Dkt. 14). Plaintiff was warned that failure to timely comply with the Order would result in dismissal of this action without further notice (Id.). To date, Plaintiff has not filed a third amended complaint.
Plaintiff is reminded that although he is appearing pro se, he is required to comply with all orders of this Court, the Local Rules of the Middle District of Florida, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. His failure to do so could result in sanctions, including dismissal of his claims. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989). Although the Court reads pleadings filed by pro se plaintiffs in a liberal fashion, see Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that "[p]ro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys"), any litigant who fails to comply with a Court order or other judicial deadline may face sanctions, including dismissal of the claim. See Wayne v. Jarvis, 197 F.3d 1098, 1104 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the problem here is not one of construction; instead, the problem is one of lack of compliance with a deadline imposed by law. Liberal construction does not mean liberal deadlines.").
ACCORDINGLY, the Court ORDERS that:
1. On or before June 22, 2012, Plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court's May 4, 2012 Order.
2. Failure to comply with this Order within the allotted time shall result in the dismissal of this action without further notice.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on June 11, 2012.
_________________
JAMES S. MOODY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SA:sfc
Copy to: Plaintiff pro se