Jackson v. EEOC et al

Filing 8

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that this action be DISMISSED, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff's failure to obey this Court's Orders or otherwise prosecute this action. Objections to R&R due by 7/23/2009. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 7/10/2009. (cc, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION _______________________________ M Y R O N J. JACKSON, ) ) P l a in tif f , ) ) v. ) ) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT ) O P P O R T U N IT Y COMMISSION, et al., ) ) D e f e n d a n ts . ) M Y R O N J. JACKSON, ) ) P l a in tif f , ) ) v. ) ) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT ) O P P O R T U N IT Y COMMISSION, et al., ) ) D e f e n d a n ts . ) MYRON J. JACKSON, ) ) P l a in tif f , ) ) v. ) ) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT ) O P P O R T U N IT Y COMMISSION, et al., ) ) D e f e n d a n ts . ) 2:09-CV-442-ID 2:09-CV-443-ID 2:09-CV-444-ID _______________________________ R E P O R T AND RECOMMENDATION O n June 24, 2009, the above-captioned cases were referred to the undersigned M a g is tra te Judge for further proceedings and determination or recommendation as may be a p p ro p r ia te . (Doc. #4). On June 26, 2009, the Court entered an Order (Doc. #5) c o n so lid a tin g the above-captioned cases pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil P ro c e d u re . The Court also entered an Order (Doc. #6) which noted several apparent defects in Plaintiff's Complaints. Specifically, the Court remarked as follows: P l a in tif f sues a number of Defendants based on vague allegations centering a ro u n d his alleged termination of employment with the Fire Department of the C ity of Montgomery and subsequent dealings with the Equal Employment O p p o rtu n ity Commission, the Department of Justice, and the United States P o s t a l Service. Plaintiff appears to allege that all parties have conspired to d e p riv e him of a meaningful opportunity to litigate any claims arising from his ter m in a tio n and to pursue reemployment. For any damages he is purported to h a v e suffered, Plaintiff seeks the following relief: "Punitive Damages: $900 m illio n U.S. Dollars; Compensatory Damages: $100 million U.S. Dollars." T h e Complaints fail to set forth any allegations of an actual conspiracy. I n s te a d , it appears Plaintiff infers some vast conspiracy flowing from the v a rio u s unfavorable decisions that have been made with respect to his job p e rf o rm a n c e, employment applications, and the adjudication of his resulting c o m p lain ts of discrimination. Thus, to the extent any conspiracy claim is in te n d e d , Plaintiff has failed to state the specific acts by each Defendant which re su lte d in the alleged harm(s) to Plaintiff and does not state what, if any, legal au th o rity provides him with an avenue of relief in this Court. This failure p re c l u d e s the Court from conducting meaningful review and forecloses the D e f en d a n ts ' ability to meaningfully respond to the Complaint. The Court thus n o te s that Plaintiff's Complaints appear to suffer from fatal defects. Order (Doc. #6) at 2-3. Accordingly, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended C o m p lain t which complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and includes specific a lle g a tio n s of unlawful conduct by each named defendant. The Court also admonished P lain tiff that "his failure to comply with this Order will lead the undersigned to recommend 2 to the district judge that the Complaint be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's O rd ers and abandonment of his claim(s)." Order (Doc. #6) at 3-4 (emphasis in original). P la in tif f has failed to file an amended complaint as instructed by the Court.1 Accordingly, th e undersigned RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff's failure to obey this Court's Orders or otherwise prosecute this action.2 It is f u rth e r O R D E R E D that Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file any objections to the said R e c o m m e n d a tio n on or before July 23, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically identify th e findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party objects. F riv o lo u s, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. P la in tif f is advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the M a g is tra te Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District C o u rt of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual Plaintiff's failure to amend his complaint as instructed cannot be attributed to any sudden aversion to conducting litigation in this Court. In addition to the seven cases Plaintiff had pending at the time of the Court's June 26, 2009, Order, Plaintiff has since filed yet another civil complaint with the Court. See Jackson v. United States House of Representatives, Civ. Act. No. 2:09-cv-631-MEF (filed July 7, 2009). 1 Additionally, and in the alternative, Plaintiff's Complaint is subject to dismissal because the allegations of the Complaint are frivolous and fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). 2 3 f in d in g s in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain e rr o r or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See Stein v . Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of P r ic h a r d , 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981) ( en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the d e c i s io n s of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on S e p te m b e r 30, 1981. DONE this 10th day of July, 2009. /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?