United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
GRAY
M. BORDEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Before
the court is the pro se complaint of Plaintiff Lance
Vonard Siler. Doc. 1. The case was referred to the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for consideration
and disposition or recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636. Doc. 6. Because Siler has moved for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), the court must
review his complaint pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). This statute instructs the court to
dismiss any action in which it is determined that an in
forma pauperis applicant's lawsuit is
“frivolous or malicious, ” “fails to state
a claim on which relief may be granted, ” or
“seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). After a careful review of the
complaint and the applicable law, and giving due
consideration to Siler's pro se status, the
undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed.
I.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Siler,
appearing pro se, filed a complaint against King
Williams Apartments. Finding the complaint to be a shotgun
pleading, this court ordered Siler to file an amended
complaint on or before February 28, 2019 that complies with
Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
contains clear allegations of facts showing that Siler is
entitled to relief under federal law. Doc. 7. The court also
pointed out that although Siler referred to sexual
discrimination in his complaint, the factual allegations did
not include any action taken because of his gender or
identify any federal law allegedly violated. Doc. 7 at 2. The
court cautioned Siler that his failure to submit an amended
complaint may result in recommendation of dismissal of this
case. Doc. 7 at 3. Siler has not filed an amended complaint
as of the date of this recommendation.
II.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
The
same standards governing dismissal under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) also govern the review of a
complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Douglas v.
Yates, 535 F.3d 1316, 1320 (11th Cir. 2008). In
evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint, the court must
consider reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor
but is “not required to draw plaintiff's
inference.” Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce,
N.A., Inc., 416 F.3d 1242, 1248 (11th Cir. 2005).
Similarly, “unwarranted deductions of fact” are
not admitted as true for the purpose of testing the
sufficiency of a plaintiff's allegations. Id.
Rule
41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for
dismissal if a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order.
Pursuant to that rule, a court may dismiss an action sua
sponte. Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep't,
205 Fed.Appx. 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006).
III.
DISCUSSION
Although
he was ordered to do so, Siler has not filed an amended
complaint within the time allowed by the court. Siler was
cautioned that his failure to submit an amended complaint in
compliance with the court's Order could result in a
recommendation of the dismissal of this case. Doc. 7 at 3. As
noted above, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 authorizes
the court to dismiss an action on its own motion when a
plaintiff fails to comply with a court order. See
Brown, 205 Fed.Appx. at 802. The district court's
“power to dismiss is an inherent aspect of its
authority to enforce its orders and ensure prompt disposition
of lawsuits.” Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457,
1458 (11th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). Dismissal with
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 is appropriate only
“where there is a clear record of willful contempt and
an implicit or explicit finding that lesser sanctions would
not suffice.” Gratton v. Great Am. Comms., 178
F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks
omitted). While dismissal with prejudice is a serious
sanction, Siler's failure to file any amended complaint
in response to the court's Order compels a finding that
Siler's failure to comply was willful, particularly given
that he was forewarned that his claims could be dismissed if
he did not comply with the Order. The court also finds that
lesser sanctions would not suffice because this litigation
cannot advance without a pleading that states a claim for
relief. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th
Cir. 1989) (stating that dismissal under Rule 41(b)
“upon disregard of an order, especially where the
litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of
discretion”).
Alternatively,
the court has considered the allegations of the complaint
under Rule 12 pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). As noted
in its previous Order (Doc. 7), while Siler refers to sexual
discrimination, the alleged facts relate to the use of
profanity when his request for assistance at his apartment
was denied, and he has not identified a federal statute or
law which has been violated. Doc. 1. The court concludes,
therefore, that pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Siler has failed
to state a claim for relief after having been given an
opportunity to replead his claims and that his claims are due
to be dismissed on that alternative basis.
The
court is of course mindful of Siler's pro se
status. While pro se pleadings are held to a lesser
standard than those prepared by attorneys and “are thus
construed liberally, ” see Alba v. Montford,
517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008), pro se
litigants still must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Giles v. Wal-Mart Distrib. Ctr., 359
Fed.Appx. 91, 93 (11th Cir. 2009) (finding no abuse of
discretion in dismissal where “despite guidance from
the district court on how to cure the deficiencies in his
complaint and a clear warning that noncompliance would be
cause for dismissal, [the plaintiff] did not comply with the
district court's order to file an amended complaint in
conformity with the requirements of Rules 8 and 10”).
IV.
CONCLUSION
In
light of the foregoing, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the
...