Tigner v. Lee County Jail (MAG+)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

ARTHUR JAMES TIGNER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 3:21-cv-342-ECM-JTA

)

LEE COUNTY JAIL, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Arthur James Tigner (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se, filed this action

alleging claims relating to his treatment as an inmate kitchen worker at the Lee County

Jail. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 2-5.) Plaintiff names as defendants the following: Lee County

Jail, Gwendolyn Crawell, Carl Key, Deborah Teodoro and unnamed members of the

kitchen staff at the jail (collectively “Defendants”). (Doc. No. 1-1.) Pursuant to 28

U.S.C § 636, this case was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge

for all pretrial proceedings and entry of any order or recommendations as may be

appropriate. (Doc. No. 2.)

On January 27, 2022, the court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or

before February 11, 2022, that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

provided specific instructions with respect to filing the amended complaint. (Doc. No. 22.)

Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the directives of that Order would

result in a Recommendation by the undersigned that this case be dismissed without

prejudice for his failure to comply with the order. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff did not file an

amended complaint.

On February 18, 2022, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show cause, on or before

March 3, 2022, why he failed to comply with the Court’s Order entered on January 27,

2022, and why his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 23.)

Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with that Order would be viewed by the Court

as an indication that he was no longer interested in prosecuting the case. (Id. at 1.) Review

of the docket sheet shows Plaintiff was served with that Order on February 23, 2022. (Doc.

No. 24.)

The time allowed for Plaintiff to file the amended complaint expired on February

11, 2022, and the time allowed for him to show cause why the case should not be dismissed

for failure to prosecute expired on March 3, 2022. (Docs. No. 22, 23.) To date, Plaintiff

has not filed an amended complaint as directed, shown cause why his case should not be

dismissed, sought an extension of either deadline, or otherwise complied with the Orders

of the court.

A federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure

to prosecute or obey a court order. See, e.g., Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–

30 (1962); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In particular, Rule 41(b) allows for the involuntary

dismissal of a plaintiff's claims where he has failed to prosecute those claims, comply with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or follow a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). See

also Coleman v. St. Lucie Cnty. Jail, 433 F. App'x 716, 718 (11th Cir. 2011); Sanders v.

Barrett, No. 05-12660, 2005 WL 2640979, at *1 (11th Cir. Oct. 17, 2005) (citing Kilgo v.

Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 192 (11th Cir. 1993)). Additionally, a district court's “power to

dismiss is an inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its orders and ensure prompt

disposition of lawsuits.” Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep't, 205 F. App'x 802, 802 (11th

Cir. 2006) (quoting Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983)). See also

Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op of Fla., 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding

that “[t]he district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket”).

While the court exercises its discretion to dismiss cases with caution, dismissal of

this action without prejudice is warranted. See Coleman, 433 F. App'x at 719 (upholding

dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute § 1983 complaint where plaintiff did

not respond to court order to supply defendant's current address for purpose of service);

Taylor v. Spaziano, 251 F. App'x 616, 620–21 (11th Cir. 2007) (upholding dismissal

without prejudice for failure to prosecute, because plaintiffs insisted on going forward with

deficient amended complaint rather than complying or seeking an extension of time to

comply with court's order to file second amended complaint); Brown, 205 F. App'x at 802–

03 (upholding dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute § 1983 claims where

plaintiff failed to follow court order to file amended complaint and court had informed

plaintiff that noncompliance could lead to dismissal). Here, Plaintiff failed to follow this

court's Orders despite having ample opportunity to do so and being forewarned of the

consequences of his failure to do so. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.

1989) (“While dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard of an order,

especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.”)

(citation omitted). Consequently, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS this

case be DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is further ORDERED that the parties may file any objections to this

Recommendation on or before March 25, 2022. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation to which the party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections

will not be considered by the District Court.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in

the Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive the right

to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal

conclusions” except upon grounds of “plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.”

11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Tr. Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149

(11th Cir. 1993)(““When the magistrate provides such notice and a party still fails to object

to the findings of fact and those findings are adopted by the district court the party may not

challenge them on appeal in the absence of plain error or manifest injustice.”); Henley v.

Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).

DONE this 10th day of March, 2022.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE