Jones v. Berryhill

Filing 18

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/7/2017. (alm, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
PATRICIA A. JONES,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:17cv208-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
On April 10, 2017, plaintiff filed her complaint
and

appeal

of

the

Social

Security

Administration’s

determination as to disability benefits.

On June 15,

2017, the United States Magistrate Judge held a hearing
with plaintiff and discussed her motion to proceed in
forma

pauperis

as

well

as

her

pro

se

status.

The

magistrate judge also explained that proceeding pro se
(representing
complying

with

herself)
court

would
rules,

not

excuse

orders,

and

her

from

deadlines.

After the hearing, the court entered an order granting
plaintiff’s request to proceed without the prepayment

of filing fees and setting forth that plaintiff’s brief
in

support

of

her

claims

defendant filed her answer.

was

due

40

days

after

The order also included a

detailed statement on what the brief should contain.1
Defendant filed her answer on September 21, 2017.

As

such, plaintiff’s brief was due on October 31, 2017.
To

date,

plaintiff

has

not

filed

a

brief

or

other

response.

1.

The order states:

“The plaintiff's brief shall contain a section
titled ‘Statement of the Issues.’
In this
section in numbered paragraphs, the plaintiff
shall state in a concise, specific manner each
issue which the plaintiff presents to the court
for resolution.
Issues not presented in the
Statement of the Issues will not be considered
... The briefs shall not exceed a total of 15
pages, except as approved by the court upon
motion. ... Claims or contentions by the
plaintiff alleging deficiencies in the ALJ[‘s]
consideration of claims or alleging mistaken
conclusions of fact or law ... must include a
specific reference by page number, to the
portion of the record which (1) recites the
ALJ’s consideration or conclusion and (2) which
supports the party’s claims, contentions or
arguments.”
Order (doc. no. 7) at ¶¶ 4 & 6 (emphases omitted).
2

On November 6, 2017, the court entered an order
requiring plaintiff to show cause why she failed to
file her brief in support of the complaint.
included

the

following

warning:

“The

The order

Plaintiff

is

specifically cautioned that if she fails to respond to
this order, this case will be dismissed for failure to
prosecute.”

Order (doc. no. 15) at 2 (emphasis in

original).

Plaintiff has filed no response to the

order.
This case merits dismissal for failure to prosecute
as there have been no responses to the court’s orders,
and

the

court

consequences
plaintiff’s

of

adequately
not

failure

to

warned

plaintiff

responding.
comply

In

with

the

of

the

light

of

court

orders

issued on June 15, 2017, and November 6, 2017, the
court
claims.

concludes

that

plaintiff

has

abandoned

her

“[E]ven a non-lawyer should realize the peril

to her case, when she ... ignores numerous notices” and
fails to comply with court orders.

3

Anthony v. Marion

Cty. Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164, 1169 (5th Cir. 1980);2
see also Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.
1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been
forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order
is not an abuse of discretion.).

Therefore, the court

finds it appropriate to exercise its “inherent power”
to “dismiss [plaintiff’s claims] sua sponte for lack of
prosecution.”

Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626,

630 (1962); see also Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V
Monada,

432

F.3d

1333,

1337

(11th

Cir.

2005)

(describing the judicial power to dismiss sua sponte
for failure to comply with court orders).
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE, this the 7th day of December, 2017.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2. The Eleventh Circuit has adopted as precedent
all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered
prior to October 1, 1981. See Bonner v. City of
Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en
banc).
4