Jacobs v. Atlanta Police Department et al

Filing 23

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Local Rule 41.2B re 20 USCA Judgment. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. on 5/25/2017. (jkl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
ERIKA JACOBS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ATLANTA POLICE
DEPARTMENT, Airport, DEKALB
COUNTY POLICE
DEPARTMENT, COBB COUNTY
POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

1:15-cv-3520-WSD

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to the judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s vacating and remanding this action to
the Court for further action [20].
I.

BACKGROUND
A.

Complaint Filed October 7, 2015

Plaintiff Erika Jacobs filed her pro se Complaint against (1) the Atlanta
Police Department; (2) the Dekalb County Police Department; (3) the Cobb
County Police Department; and (4) “et. all [sic],” without listing other entities or
people.

On October 7, 2015, Magistrate Judge Russell G. Vineyard granted Jacobs’s
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and ordered that service
of process not issue until the district court had made a frivolity determination as to
Jacobs’s Complaint. The Magistrate Judge cautioned Jacobs that she must advise
the district court of her current address at all times while her action was pending.
The Magistrate Judge noted that Jacobs was “no stranger to the judicial process”
and had filed five other civil actions in the Northern District of Georgia, two of
which had been dismissed in part for failure to obey a court order.
B.

March 23, 2016, Order Allowing until April 8 to Amend Complaint

On March 23, 2016, the Court, in conducting its frivolity review pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), determined that Jacobs’s Complaint failed to comply
with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. The Court stated that Jacob’s
Complaint “does not comply with these rule[s] because it contains four
‘paragraphs,’ each of which contains a laundry list of allegations involving
multiple sets of circumstances, individuals, and alleged claims.”
In its March 23, 2016 order, the Court ordered Jacobs to file, on or before
April 8, 2016, an amended complaint that identified the claims she sought to assert
against each defendant and the specific facts that supported each claim. The Court
also warned Jacobs that failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in

2

dismissal pursuant to the Northern District of Georgia’s Local Rule 41.3A(2). See
L.R. 41.3A(2), NDGa (providing that the court may, with or without notice to the
parties, dismiss a civil case for want of prosecution if a plaintiff, after notice, fails
or refuses to obey a lawful order of the court in the case).
C.

April 13, 2016, Order Dismissing Case

Jacobs did not file an amended complaint or a motion for an extension of
time on or before April 8, 2016. On April 13, 2016, the Court entered an order sua
sponte dismissing her complaint pursuant to Local Rule 41.3(A)(2) for failure to
comply with the Court’s March 23, 2016 order. The clerk’s office entered a
judgment dismissing Jacobs’s action. Because this dismissal did not say without
prejudice, the dismissal was with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b).
D.

Jacobs’s Motion to Extend Deadline and Motion for Reconsideration

On April 13, 2016—the same day that her Complaint was dismissed—
Jacobs filed a motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. On
the same day, Jacobs also filed a notice of a change of address. In Jacobs’s
extension motion, Jacobs explained that her mailing address changed on
March 23, 2016, she requested that the post office forward all of her mail, but she
had not yet received the district court’s March 23, 2016 order. Instead, Jacobs first

3

learned of the Court’s March 23, 2016 order when she called the clerk’s office on
April 7, 2016.
The Court denied Jacobs’s Motion to Extend the deadline. The Court also
denied Jacobs’s Motion for Reconsideration.
E.

Appeal and Eleventh Circuit’s Opinion

On September 7, 2016, Jacobs filed her Notice of Appeal [14]. On
April 17, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit issued its Opinion vacating the Court’s
dismissal of her Complaint for failure to comply with the Court’s order to file an
amended complaint, and remanding this action. The Eleventh Circuit found that,
because the Court dismissed Jacobs’s Complaint under Local Rule 41.2B, the
Court was required to dismiss the Complaint without prejudice. Because the Court
did not specify that the dismissal was without prejudice, the dismissal was with
prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Eleventh Circuit
found that the Court did not make the required findings necessary to dismiss with
prejudice, which are (1) willful delay or conduct, and (2) that lesser sanctions will
not suffice. The Eleventh Circuit stated, however, that, under the circumstances of
this case, the Court “was within its discretion to dismiss Jacob[s]’s complaint
without prejudice.” ([19] at 10).

4

On May 19, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit issued its judgment vacating the
Court’s dismissal order and remanding this action to the Court for further
proceedings. On May 25, 2017, the Court issued its Order making the Eleventh
Circuit’s judgment the judgment of this Court.
II.

DISCUSSION
Local Rule 41.2B provides that a party’s failure to keep the clerk’s office

informed of a change of address that “causes a delay or otherwise adversely affects
the management of the case shall constitute grounds . . . for dismissal of the action
without prejudice . . . .” L.R. 41.2B, NDGa. The Court found that Jacobs’s delay
“adversely affected the management” of her case. The Eleventh Circuit found that,
under the particular circumstances of this case, “the district court was within its
discretion to dismiss Jacob[s]’s complaint without prejudice.” ([19] at 10).
Accordingly, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice pursuant to Local
Rule 41.2B.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE pursuant to Local Rule 41.2B.

5

SO ORDERED this 25th day of May, 2017.

6