USCA11 Case: 22-14171 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 08/28/2023 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-14171
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
JAMES ALEXANDER LOGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
J. A. GODWIN,
T. DYKES,
LT,
P. WHITE,
MAJOR,
SANTA ROSA CI WARDEN,
D. STROBAUGH,
SGT, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 22-14171 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 08/28/2023 Page: 2 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 22-14171
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 3:22-cv-09565-LC-HTC
____________________
Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
James Logan, a Florida state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed
a civil-rights action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting violations of
his First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment rights. After twice permit-
ting leave to amend, the district court dismissed the action without
prejudice for failure to comply with court orders and local rules.
The court also indicated that Logan’s claims lacked merit. Because
the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for fail-
ure to comply with court orders, we affirm on that ground without
reaching the merits of Logan’s claims.
I.
In July 2022, Logan filed a 44-page complaint alleging vari-
ous misconduct by prison officials and employees from April 2022
to June 2022, including sexual harassment, retaliation, improper
property restrictions, falsified disciplinary reports, and excessive
placement in close management.
USCA11 Case: 22-14171 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 08/28/2023 Page: 3 of 6
22-14171 Opinion of the Court 3
A magistrate judge sua sponte reviewed this filing and or-
dered Logan to file an amended complaint. The judge found that
the complaint was deficient in three ways: (1) it exceeded the
court’s 25-page limit under Northern District of Florida Local Rule
5.7(B); (2) it was not limited to a single incident or issue, and (3) it
was hard to read and the allegations “wander[ed] from topic to
topic.” The magistrate judge ordered Logan to file an “amended
complaint which more clearly sets out his claim, which addresses
only a single incident or issue, which is legible, and which is 25
pages or less.”
Logan moved to exceed the 25-page limit, but the magistrate
judge denied relief, finding that Logan had not justified the need
for more than 25 pages. The magistrate judge warned that failure
to comply with the court’s order could result in dismissal.
Logan timely filed a 29-page amended complaint in Septem-
ber 2022, which the magistrate judge accepted for screening even
though it exceeded the page limit. The magistrate judge then dis-
missed the first amended complaint for failure to state a claim. In
so doing, the magistrate judge reviewed Logan’s allegations in de-
tail, identified various deficiencies in his claims, and provided guid-
ance on how to correct them. Although the magistrate judge was
“doubtful” Logan would “be able to correct the defects,” she nev-
ertheless permitted Logan to file a second amended complaint.
She also granted Logan’s motion for an extension of time to
replead. But she instructed him not to include a legal memoran-
dum, as he had suggested in his motion.
USCA11 Case: 22-14171 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 08/28/2023 Page: 4 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 22-14171
Logan filed his second amended complaint in October 2022,
naming eleven defendants. The filing contained a total of 134
pages, consisting of (a) the completed second amended complaint
form and attached handwritten answers (26 pages); (b) a support-
ing legal memorandum, which largely restated Logan’s allegations
and claims (22.5 pages); and (c) an exhibit list (2.5 pages) and vari-
ous prison records related to his claims (83 pages).
The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the second
amended complaint for failure to follow court orders. The judge
found that Logan “completely disregarded” her prior orders and
the local rules by submitting a 134-page second amended com-
plaint that (1) well exceeded the 25-page limit, even if the exhibits
were excluded, and (2) failed to cure the other deficiencies identi-
fied in the order granting leave to amend. According to the magis-
trate judge, that disregard of clear orders warranted dismissal. The
magistrate judge also found that Logan had not stated a viable
claim against any defendant.
Logan objected that his second amended complaint—ex-
cluding the attached memorandum of law and exhibits—was
shorter than his first amended complaint, which the magistrate
judge had accepted. He also maintained that he stated viable
claims against the various defendants.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recom-
mendation and dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to
state a claim and failure to comply with court orders.
II.
USCA11 Case: 22-14171 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 08/28/2023 Page: 5 of 6
22-14171 Opinion of the Court 5
“Federal courts possess an inherent power to dismiss a com-
plaint for failure to comply with a court order.” Foudy v. Indian
River Cnty. Sheriff’s Office,
845 F.3d 1117,
845 F.3d 1117, 1126 (11th
Cir. 2017). We review a dismissal for failure to comply with court
orders for an abuse of discretion.
Id. at 1122.
Ordinarily, a dismissal without prejudice for failure to comply
with a court order is not an abuse of discretion. See Dynes v. Army
Air Force Exch. Serv.,
720 F.2d 1495, 1499 (11th Cir. 1983) (“Although
this case does not involve a series of violation of court rules or pre-
trial orders, because the case was dismissed without prejudice, we
cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.”).
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dis-
missing Logan’s case without prejudice for failure to comply with
court orders and the local rules. The magistrate judge warned Lo-
gan that his amended complaints would be subject to dismissal if
he exceeded the 25-page limit specified in the local rules. Although
the magistrate judge appeared willing to accept some minimal ex-
cess, Logan’s second amended complaint and attachments spanned
134 pages, well above that limit. Even excluding the extensive ex-
hibits, the second amended complaint and accompanying memo-
randum of law still covered nearly 50 pages. While Logan believes
the memorandum should be excluded, the court was permitted to
consider the memorandum, which was not authorized, as part of
the pleading under its local rules. See N.D. Fla., Local Rule 5.7(B)
(“A petition, motion, or complaint, together with any memorandum,
must not exceed 25 pages, unless the Court authorizes it.”).
USCA11 Case: 22-14171 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 08/28/2023 Page: 6 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 22-14171
Because Logan disregarded clear instructions not to exceed
the 25-page limit, the district court was empowered to dismiss the
case without prejudice “to enforce its orders and insure prompt dis-
position of law suits.” See Dynes,
720 F.2d at 1499 (quotation marks
omitted). That the dismissal was without prejudice means he can
refile his complaint, with appropriate amendments, if he so
chooses. 1
For these reasons, we affirm the dismissal without prejudice
of Logan’s §1983 civil-rights complaint for failure to comply with
court rules. We do not consider whether Logan otherwise stated
a viable claim to relief. Logan’s motion for “judicial notice for im-
mediate judicial action,” which asks for relief outside the scope of
this appeal, is DENIED.
AFFIRMED.
1 Where a dismissal without prejudice would preclude a plaintiff from filing
because of the statute of limitations, “we apply the stricter standard of review
that we ordinarily employ when reviewing a dismissal with prejudice,” which
is a “sanction of last resort.” Mickles v. Country Club Inc.,
887 F.3d 1270, 1280
(11th Cir. 2018) (quotation marks omitted). Because it does not appear the
dismissal here would prevent Logan from timely refiling, we do not apply this
stricter standard. See Burton v. City of Belle Glade,
178 F.3d 1175, 1188 (11th Cir.
1999) (“[A] plaintiff must commence a § 1983 claim arising in Florida within
four years of the allegedly unconstitutional or otherwise illegal act.”).
