Jackson v. City of Montgomery, AL et al

Filing 6

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS on that this action be DISMISSED, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff's failure to obey this Courts 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. (cb, )

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. STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . _______________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:09-CV-447-ID R E P O R T AND RECOMMENDATION B e f o r e the Court is Plaintiff's pro se Complaint (Doc. #1). On June 24, 2009, this c a se was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings and d e te rm in a tio n or recommendation as may be appropriate. (Doc. #4). On June 26, 2009, the C o u rt entered an Order (Doc. #5) which noted several apparent defects in Plaintiff's C o m p lain t. Specifically, the Court remarked as follows: Upon a preliminary review, the Court observes that it is unable to clearly d iscern the substance of Plaintiff's claims against the various Defendants. It a p p e ars Plaintiff is alleging a conspiracy to invade his right to privacy by s ta lk in g and harassing Plaintiff. Plaintiff also claims that the Defendants have "sh are d " details about Plaintiff's activities and whereabouts. Other, u n s p e c if ie d , Defendants are accused of being unwilling to investigate or p ro se c u te complaints about these conspiracies. For any damages he is p u rp o r te d to have suffered, Plaintiff seeks the following relief: "Punitive D a m a g e s : $50,000,000,000 U.S. Dollars; Compensatory Damages: $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 U.S. Dollars." The Complaint fails to set forth the specific a c ts by each Defendant which resulted in the alleged harm to Plaintiff and does n o t state what, if any, legal authority provides Plaintiff with an avenue of relief in this Court. This failure precludes the Court from conducting meaningful re v ie w and forecloses the Defendants' ability to meaningfully respond to the C o m p la in t. The Court thus notes that Plaintiff's Complaint appears to suffer f r o m fatal defects. Order (Doc. #5) at 1-2. 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 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. #5) at 2 (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. 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 2 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 i s tr a t e 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 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 is 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 3

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?