Samuels v. Demerin
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 11/6/15. (SAC )
2015 Nov-06 PM 03:11
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
RALSTON E. SAMUELS,
KEVIN DEMERIN, et al.,
Case No.: 4:14-cv-2106-KOB
This matter comes before the court on “Defendant Demerin’s Motion to Dismiss or, in
the Alternative, For Summary Judgment.” (Doc. 39).
On October 30, 2014, pro se Plaintiff Ralston Samuels filed the instant suit against
Defendants Kevin Demerin and William Shane Ballow1, alleging violations of Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Doc. 1).
On August 20, 2015, Defendant Ballow filed a Motion to Dismiss the claim asserted
against him. (Doc. 34). The court in turn entered an Order to Show Cause, directing Samuels to
show cause in writing on or before September 21, 2015 why the court should not grant Ballow’s
motion. (Doc. 35). Recognizing the difficulties faced by Samuels as a pro se plaintiff litigating
this case from Jamaica, the court allowed Samuels more time than usual – 30 days – to respond
to this Order. (Id.).
Samuels originally asserted a claim against Defendant John Doe, but the court later
substituted William Shane Ballow for John Doe after ICE identified Ballow as the person
responsible for approving detainees’ medical orders. (Doc.16).
On September 17, 2015, the court held a telephone conference with Samuels and
Defendants’ counsel. In this conference, the court reminded Samuels of his obligation to respond
to the Order to Show Cause. Samuels assured the court that his response to the court’s Order to
Show Cause on Ballow’s motion was “in the mail” on its way to the clerk’s office. In this
conference, counsel for the Defendants also informed the court and Samuels that Defendant
Kevin Demerin would soon be filing a separate Motion to Dismiss.
Following this conference, on September 18, 2015, Defendant Demerin filed the Motion
to Dismiss that is the subject of this Order. (Doc. 39). The court entered a second Order to Show
Cause, directing Samuels to show cause in writing on or before October 23, 2015 why the court
should not grant Demerin’s motion. (Doc. 40).
Thereafter, on September 28, 2015, the court received Samuels’s response to the first
Order to Show Cause. (Doc. 41). The court considered the merits of Ballow’s Motion to Dismiss
as well as Samuels’s response2 and determined that Ballow’s motion was due to be granted.
Accordingly, the court dismissed Samuels’s claim against Defendant William Shane Ballow.
To date, the court has received no response from Samuels on its second Order to Show
Cause, regarding the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Demerin. (Doc. 40). The second
Order to Show Cause was sent to the same address as the first Order to Show Cause, to which
Samuels responded. Samuels has neither provided the court with a new mailing address, nor has
the second Order to Show Cause been returned to the court as undeliverable. Thus, the court
The court considered Samuels’s response even though it was filed a week after the
deadline set by the court in its first Order to Show Cause.
presumes that Samuels did receive the court’s second Order to Show Cause. Further, on
September 17, defense counsel advised Samuels that Demerin’s Motion to Dismiss would be
filed soon after the conference call, so Samuels should have been looking for it. Consequently,
the court finds that Samuels has failed to comply with this court’s Order and has failed to
otherwise prosecute his claim against Demerin.
Therefore, the court will GRANT Demerin’s Motion to Dismiss; DISMISS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE Samuels’s claim against Demerin; and as this claim is the only remaining claim in
the case, DISMISS the case, costs taxed as paid.
DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of November, 2015.
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?