Welch v. Dawson et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for failure to file a more definite statement & failure to comply with pleading rules and the Court's order. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 5/3/2013. Copy mailed to Plaintiff. (tgw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
E.S. WELCH, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES R. GODWIN, etc., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION 13-0174-WS-C
)
)
)
)

ORDER
On April 12, 2013, the Court issued an order directing the plaintiff to file,
no later than April 29, 2013, an amended complaint reflecting the existence of
subject matter jurisdiction and satisfying the pleading requirements of Rule 8.
(Doc. 2). The plaintiff was expressly warned that failure to do so would result in
dismissal of this action without prejudice. (Id. at 2). The plaintiff has filed
nothing other than a request for return of his filing fee. (Doc. 3).
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice for the following
reasons: (1) under Rule 12(h)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) under
Rule 12(e) for failure to file a more definite statement as ordered by the Court; and
(3) under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with pleading rules and the Court’s
order.
DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of May, 2013.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE