Prosperous v. Todd et al

Filing 144

ORDER: The motions to dismiss filed by the Office of Ken Burke (Doc. # 141 ), Agnes McCabe (Doc. # 142 ), and Directions for Living, Jessica Long, and Rochelle Noel (Doc. # 140 ) are GRANTED, as unopposed, to the extent that the case is dismissed without prejudice. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 10/4/2017. (AWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ALEXANDRA LOVE PROSPEROUS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:17-cv-996-T-33MAP

AGNES MCCABE, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
On April 28, 2017, Pro se Plaintiff Alexandra Love
Prosperous filed a Complaint, which was dismissed sua sponte
by the Court on May 3, 2017, for failure to comply with the
pleading requirements. (Doc. ## 1, 36). Prosperous filed an
Amended Complaint that still failed to comply with those
requirements on May 16, 2017, and the Court

sua sponte

dismissed

78).

it

on

May

22,

2017.

(Doc.

#

44,

After

Prosperous filed the Second Amended Complaint on June 9, 2017
(Doc. # 85), multiple Defendants responded by filing motions
to dismiss. (Doc. ## 99, 100, 103, 107). Prosperous failed to
respond to those motions and the Court dismissed and closed
the case on July 12, 2017. (Doc. # 108). On motion from
Prosperous, the Court reopened the case to allow her to file

a Third Amended Complaint (Doc. ## 109, 110), which she did
on August 22, 2017 (Doc. # 112).
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
three motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. #
112) filed by Defendants the Office of Ken Burke (Doc. # 141),
Agnes McCabe (Doc. # 142), and Directions for Living, Jessica
Long, and Rochelle Noel (Doc. # 140). As discussed below,
because Prosperous has failed to respond, the Court grants
the motions to dismiss to the extent that it dismisses the
case without prejudice and directs the Clerk to close this
case.
Discussion
The motions to dismiss now before the Court were filed
on August 30, 2017 (Doc. ## 140, 141), and September 1, 2017
(Doc.

#

142).

Each

motion

to

dismiss

was

provided

to

Prosperous via United States mail. (Doc. ## 140 at 9, 141 at
7, 142 at 11). The time for Prosperous to respond to these
motions passed on September 18, 2017, which includes three
additional days for mailed service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d);
Local Rule 3.01(b). For the reasons set forth below, the Court
considers the motions unopposed.
On May 4, 2017, the Court warned Prosperous that she has
“a continuing obligation to regularly monitor the docket.”
2

(Doc. # 37 at 10). The Court explained, “[i]f a response is
not timely filed, the Court may assume Plaintiff does not
oppose that motion and any relief requested by it.” (Id. at
7).
After

the

Court

sua

sponte

dismissed

the

Amended

Complaint, Prosperous requested access to CM/ECF. (Doc. #
80). She stated that “[t]he ability to e-file . . . is
essential to [her] ability to represent herself in this case.”
(Id. at ¶ 4). The Court granted the request on May 25, 2017.
(Doc. # 84). Despite this, Prosperous did not register for
the service.
Prosperous filed her Second Amended Complaint on June 9,
2017. (Doc. # 85). Multiple Defendants then moved to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint between June 21 and 27, 2017.
(Doc. ## 99, 100, 103, 107). Prosperous failed to respond and
the Court dismissed and closed the case on July 12, 2017.
(Doc. # 108).
On July 24, 2017, Prosperous moved to reopen the case,
stating that she did not receive notice of the motions to
dismiss. (Doc. # 109). The Court reopened the case, despite
the fact that the situation was “one of her own making” due
to her failure to register for CM/ECF and “in spite of the
fact that Prosperous did receive notice of at least one of
3

the motions to dismiss.” (Doc. # 110 at 3). The Court gave
Prosperous the opportunity to file a third amended complaint
but reiterated its earlier warnings:
the Court previously warned Prosperous
she would only receive 14 days to respond
to motions and that failure to timely
file a response would allow the Court to
‘assume Plaintiff does not oppose [the]
motion and any relief requested by it.’
(Doc. # 37 at 7). Going forward,
Prosperous should remember that she
retains a duty to actively monitor the
docket, which she can do through CM/ECF
or PACER . . . .
(Doc. # 110 at 3-4).
Prosperous

remains unregistered for CM/ECF.

But, as

discussed above, Prosperous must still regularly monitor the
docket. See Yeschick v. Mineta, 675 F.3d 622, 629-30 (6th
Cir. 2012); MB REO-FL Church-2 LLC v. Tampa for Christ Church,
Inc., No. 8:16-cv-276-T-33AEP, 2017 WL 2123493 (M.D. Fla. May
16, 2017). If a motion is filed that she opposes, she must
timely respond within seventeen days (while she still relies
on mail service) or risk the Court assuming she does not
oppose the motion.
Prosperous had until on September 18, 2017, to respond
to the three motions to dismiss now before the Court. Despite
the additional time the Court has waited to rule on the
motions to dismiss, Prosperous has not filed a response in

4

opposition to the motions. The Court considers the motions
unopposed and grants them

to the extent that the Court

dismisses the case without prejudice.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
1.

The motions to dismiss filed by the Office of Ken Burke
(Doc. # 141), Agnes McCabe (Doc. # 142), and Directions
for Living, Jessica Long, and Rochelle Noel (Doc. # 140)
are GRANTED, as unopposed, to the extent that the case
is dismissed without prejudice.

2.

This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

3.

The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 4th

day of October, 2017.

5