Williams v. T-Mobile, USA, 1:24-cv-00112

Wendy M. Williams, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against T-Mobile USA alleging device hacking, slander, and defamation.
Williams alleged T-Mobile violated her constitutional rights, invaded her privacy, and harmed her reputation.
Williams did not pay the requisite filing fee nor filed a motion to proceed without prepayment, as required by court order dated April 12, 2024.
She was directed to pay or request fee waiver by April 26, 2024, but did neither, nor did she seek an extension or offer any explanation.
The court noted there was no indication its order was not received by Williams.
The matter is before the court on whether the case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Dismissal for failing to pay filing fee or seek waiver	N/A (No response; plaintiff took no action)	N/A (No response)	Case should be dismissed without prejudice
Compliance with court orders	N/A	N/A	Dismissal recommended under Rule 41(b)
Propriety of less severe sanctions before dismissal	No objections or attempts to comply	None	Lesser sanctions inadequate in this context
Plaintiff's right to continue litigation	N/A	N/A	Case dismissal recommended without prejudice

Smith v. Bruster, 424 F. App’x 912 (11th Cir. 2011) (court may dismiss for failure to comply with court rules or orders)
Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2005) (dismissal with prejudice requires clear record of delay or willful conduct and inadequacy of lesser sanctions)
Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479 (11th Cir. 2006) (court has inherent authority to dismiss for failure to comply with orders)
Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (inherent power of courts to dismiss cases for lack of prosecution)
Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989) (dismissal for disobeying an order is not abuse of discretion if the litigant has been forewarned)