United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
M. GORDEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the court is the pro se complaint of Plaintiff Roy
Glover. Doc. 1. The case has been referred to the undersigned
United States Magistrate Judge for consideration and
disposition or recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636. Doc. 4. Because Glover is proceeding in forma
pauperis (Doc. 7), 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 Glover's pro se status, the
undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
appearing pro se, filed a complaint against the
Alabama Department of Transportation and the State of Alabama
Personnel Department. Finding the complaint to be a shotgun
pleading, this court ordered Glover to file an amended
complaint on or before March 5, 2019 that complied with Rules
8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
contained clear allegations of facts showing that Glover is
entitled to relief under federal law. Doc. 8. The court
cautioned Glover that his failure to submit an amended
complaint may result in recommendation for the dismissal of
this case. Doc. 7 at 3. Glover has not filed an amended
complaint as of the date of this recommendation.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
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.
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 Dept., 205
Fed.Appx. 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006).
he was ordered to do so, Glover has not filed an amended
complaint within the time allotted to him. The court
cautioned Glover that his failure to submit an amended
complaint in compliance with the court's Order may result
in a recommendation that the case be dismissed. Doc. 8 at 3.
As noted above, Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure provides that if a plaintiff fails to comply with a
court order the court can dismiss the action on its own
motion. 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). In this case, while
dismissal with prejudice is a serious sanction, given
Glover's failure to comply with the Order to file an
amended complaint which complies with Rules 8 and 10 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court concludes that
Glover's failure to comply was willful, particularly
since 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
pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) the court has considered
the allegations of the complaint under Rule 12. While Glover
refers in his complaint to Reynolds v. Alabama Department
of Transportation, 85-T-665-N, and attaches documents
regarding the procedures for filing a complaint, there is
little factual content regarding the claim he seeks to bring.
The court concludes, therefore, that pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6), Glover has failed to state a claim for relief after
having been given an opportunity to replead his claims. His
claims are due to be dismissed on this alternative basis.
court is of course mindful of Glover'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”).
light of the foregoing, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the
Magistrate Judge that this action be DISMISSED without
service of process.
further ORDERED that the Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file any
objections to this Recommendation on or before April
2, 2019. Any objections filed must identify the
specific findings in the Magistrate Judge's
Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous,
conclusive, or general objections will not be considered by