Benford v. Jones
MEMORANDUM OPINION-re: Motion to Dismiss 7 . Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 8/12/2013. (AVC)
Benford v. Jones
2013 Aug-12 PM 04:46
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ALPHONSO BRONTAY BENFORD,
BRIAN CT JONES,
Case No.: 2:13-CV-01092-RDP
This matter is before the court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 7), filed July 30,
2013. The sole defendant in this action is Brian C.T. Jones, the current District Attorney for
Limestone County, Alabama, in his official capacity. (Doc. # 1).
Plaintiff's Complaint stems from a forfeiture action initiated against Plaintiff's property by
the State of Alabama in 2008, prior to the time Jones became the DA. On August 17, 2010, the
Limestone County Circuit court entered judgment in the forfeiture action against Plaintiff and his
property forfeiting all property named in the complaint except one car. On September 20, 2010,
Plaintiff appealed the forfeiture of his property to the Alabama Supreme Court. On or about June
10, 2011, the Alabama Supreme Court entered final judgment against Plaintiff and his property,
affirming the trial court's order of forfeiture. (Doc. # 1 at 4). Jones was not sworn is as DA until
January 18, 2011, when Plaintiffs' appeal of the forfeiture action was already pending before the
Alabama Supreme Court. (Doc. # 7-1).
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss presents two arguments. First, Plaintiff's claims are barred
by the doctrine of absolute immunity. Second, Plaintiff's claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. (Doc. # 7).
On July 30, 2013, the court issued a text order (Doc. # 8) reminding the parties to brief the
Motion to Dismiss in accordance with Exhibit B of the Initial Order (Doc. # 9 at 17). Exhibit B
provides that the "opponent's responsive brief shall be filed no later than seven (7) calendar days"
after the Motion was filed. Therefore, Plaintiff's opposition should have been filed on, or Plaintiff
should have sought an extension of time before, July 7, 2013. However, Plaintiff failed to submit
a response in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss or request that the deadline be extended.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "expressly authorize a district court to dismiss a claim,
including a counterclaim, or entire action for failure to prosecute or obey a court order or federal
rule." State Exchange Bank v. Hartline, 693 F.2d 1350, 1352 (11th Cir. 1982); see Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b-c). Additionally, a district court has "inherent  authority to enforce its orders and ensure
prompt disposition of legal actions." State Exchange, 693 F. 2d at 1353. A dismissal with prejudice
is considered "an extreme sanction . . . imposed only when: '(1) a party engages in a clear pattern of
delay or willful contempt (contumacious conduct); and (2) the district court specifically finds that
lesser sanctions would not suffice.'" Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONDA, 432 F. 3d 1333, 13371338 (11th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
The court construes Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Motion to Dismiss as a failure to
prosecute his claims against Defendant, and finds that the Motion to Dismiss is due to be granted and
Defendant is entitled, at a minimum, to have Plaintiff's claims dismissed without prejudice for this
reason alone. The court need not further analyze whether the circumstances are present which
warrant a dismissal with prejudice as a sanction. This is because Defendant is also entitled to have
his motion granted on substantive grounds. First, a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity for
all acts he takes while performing his function as an advocate for the government, including pursuit
of criminal prosecution, examining witnesses, and presentation of evidence. Imbler v. Pachtman,
424 U.S. 409, 427-28 (1976); Rivera v. Leal, 359 F.3d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 2004). The allegations
of Plaintiff's Complaint all center around actions taken by the DA prior to Jones – that is, before
Jones was even in office1 -- in connection with the forfeiture action on behalf of the state. Second,
"the Rooker–Feldman doctrine recognizes that federal district courts do not have jurisdiction to act
as appellate courts and precludes them from reviewing final state court decisions." Green v.
Jefferson County Com'n, 563 F.3d 1243, 1249 (11th Cir. 2009). Because Plaintiff has already
appealed these issues through the highest Alabama state court, the Alabama Supreme Court, that is
clearly what Plaintiff invites this court to do. Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case,
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 7) is due to be granted and Plaintiff's claims dismissed with
A separate order will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this
day of August, 2013.
R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Of course, this also presents another fatal problem for Plaintiff insofar as he asserts claims against Jones. Jones was not even the DA at
the time of the factual events referenced in the Complaint.
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?