United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
F. BIVINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
who is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis (Doc. 11), filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and the Americans with Disability Act
(”ADA”). In screening Plaintiff's complaint, as
required by the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(B)(2), the
undersigned found deficiencies in his complaint and ordered
that he file amended complaints to cure the noted
deficiencies in an effort to have a proper complaint before
the Court. Pelletier v. Zweifel, 921 F.2d 1465, 1522
(11th Cir. 1991)(requiring a court to “intervene at the
earliest possible moment in the proceeding” when faced
with a complaint that does not comply with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and require the plaintiff to replead his
entire case), abrogated on other grounds Douglas Asphalt
Co. v. QORE, Inc., 657 F.3d 1146, 1151 (11th Cir. 2011).
Because Plaintiff did not comply with the Court's orders
to plead a complying amended complaint after being given
several opportunities to do so, it is recommended that this
action be dismissed with prejudice, prior to service of
process, for failure to comply with the Court's orders.
district court has inherent authority to manage its own
docket ‘so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious
disposition of cases.'” Equity Lifestyle
Properties, Inc. v. Florida Mowing & Landscaping Serv.,
Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2009)(quoting
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43, 111 S.Ct.
2123, 2132, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991)). The Court's
management of cases includes requiring a plaintiff to
re-plead a complaint to avoid “the expenditure of much
time and effort” by the court and a defendant in
deciphering the pleadings as best they can.
Pelletier, 921 F.2d at 1522. The objective is to
have a complaint that provides fair or adequate notice of
plaintiff's claims to the defendants and the court.
Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff's Office, 792
F.3d 1313, 1323 (11th Cir. 2015). When a plaintiff does not
comply with a court's order, a district court has the
discretion to “dismiss a claim if the plaintiff fails
to prosecute it or comply with [the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure or] a court order.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
“‘The power to invoke this sanction is necessary
in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of
pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the
District Court.'” Equity Lifestyle Prop.,
556 F.3d at 1240 (quoting Durham v. Fla. East Coast Ry.
Co., 385 F.2d 366, 367 (5th Cir. 1967)).
Posture of Action.
Original Complaint (Doc. 1).
March 14, 2018, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a
4-page, single-spaced, typewritten complaint in a small
fontagainst the City of Mobile, Alabama, Police
Officer David C. Reyes, RN Terri Milton, and John and Jane
Does (Mayors of Mobile, the Chief of Police of Mobile,
correctional officers, Correctional Warden, and the Sheriff
of Mobile County). (Doc. 1 at 1). According to Plaintiff,
Defendant Officer Reyes arrested him after he hesitated in
proceeding through a traffic light once it turned from red to
green. (Id.). Plaintiff contends that Defendant
Reyes ignored his statements that his passenger had caused a
distraction, and that he suffered from (1) a traumatic brain
injury that caused an imbalance disorder, (2) a prior broken
ankle that contributed to his instability, and (3) glaucoma
that was treated with medication that caused redness in his
eyes. (Id.). Plaintiff also alleges that he was
transported to Mobile County Metro Jail, where his medical
conditions were ignored and made light of and where
correctional officers and Defendant Reyes repeatedly denied
his multiple requests to use the restroom. (Id.).
Per Plaintiff, he was twice denied access to a bathroom
after he took the breathalyzer test. (Id.).
Plaintiff then alleges that Defendant Reyes accused him of
refusing to take the breathalyzer test because
“[Plaintiff] was demanding that he be allowed to use
the restroom”, and after Plaintiff was allowed to use
the restroom, Defendant Reyes refused to administer the
breathalyzer test because he said Plaintiff had refused to
take the breathalyzer test. (Id.). Plaintiff
maintains that as a result, his driver's license was
suspended for refusal to take a breathalyzer test, and that
this constitutes discrimination on account of his disability.
claims that Defendant RN Milton examined him after the
“abuse” and declared that he clearly was not
intoxicated, but, as the jail nurse, she could not testify
unless compelled to do so. (Id.). Plaintiff also
asserts that the supervising John/Jane Doe Defendants
(wardens, sheriffs, and police chiefs) failed to properly
train Defendants with respect to his complained of violation
(id.), and Defendant City of Mobile failed in its
duty to properly train its police officers in their
responsibilities under the ADA. (Id.). Plaintiff
attached as exhibits two audio/video recordings, which he
alleges show that he was subjected to abuse. (Id.).
relief, Plaintiff claims that the publication on the internet
of his physics theory, which he values at $100 billion, has
been delayed by his arrest, and he seeks compensation for the
loss of income caused by the delay. (Id. at 2).
First Amended Complaint (Doc. 5-1). 
next filed a Motion to Refile his Complaint. (Doc. 5). In his
first amended complaint (Doc. 5-1), Plaintiff stated that he
was arrested on April 15, 2018 and added Defendants City Council
of Mobile, Alabama, Shirlina Monterro, and A. Holmes Whiddon,
Jr. (Id. at 1). The amended complaint was allowed as
a matter of right. (Doc. 7).
Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 8).
filed another Amended Complaint on May 10, 2018, which
appears to be a copy of the original complaint he filed on
March 14, 2018. (Doc. 8).
Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 9). 
third amended complaint, filed on June 5, 2018, consists of
17 single-spaced pages typed in a small font. Plaintiff
provided names for some of the previously unidentified John
and Jane Doe Defendants, added numerous other Defendants,
(Doc. 9 at 1), and essentially reiterated
the basis for his claim, but added more details, and included
statements of law and legal arguments. (Id.
¶¶ 10, 22, 27, 32).
Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. 19).
thereto, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Refile the Complaint
(Doc. 12). The Court found Plaintiff's (third) amended
complaint (Doc. 9) deficient and ordered Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint specifying the conduct for which each
Defendant was responsible and clarifying the cause of action
he was asserting against each Defendant. (Doc. 13). Plaintiff
was cautioned that his claims against fictitious parties
would not be allowed to proceed in federal court and was
warned that his request for relief appeared frivolous and
fantastic. (Id. at 6-7). He was further advised that
his allegations must show plausibility as required by the
decisions in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), and Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868
(2009) (id. at 2), and the Twombly and
Iqbal holdings were explained to him. (Id.
at 2-3). Plaintiff was warned that his failure to file an
amended complaint that addressed and corrected the noted
deficiencies on or before August 28, 2018 would result in a
recommendation that the case be dismissed. (Id. at
Plaintiff filed multiple motions to enlarge the time to file
an amended complaint. (Doc. 14, 16). The Court ultimately
extended the time to October 12, 2019. (Doc. 17). Plaintiff
filed another motion to extend the time to file an amended
complaint on October 15, 2018. (Doc. 18). Along with the
motion, Plaintiff filed his fourth amended complaint. (Doc.
fourth amended complaint, Plaintiff named approximately 57
Defendants (Doc. 9), most of whom he provided little factual
background and some of whom he did not provide a name. (Doc.
19 at 4-6). Plaintiff also repeated information from his
original complaint and amended complaints and repeated
information within the amended complaint itself. Plaintiff
also lumped the names of approximately 22 Defendants into a
paragraph stating that each failed in their duties to
properly train their police officers in how to interact with
persons with disabilities. (Id. ¶ 24). See
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)
(holding that “multiple claims against a single party
are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be
joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated
claims against different defendants belong in different
suits, . . . to prevent the sort of morass that this
50-claim, 24-defendant suit produced”).
Fifth Amended ...