COVINGTON v. ABSOLUTE COLLECTION SERVICE
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 6/4/2013; RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Sheets, Jamie)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
JAMILA COVINGTON,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
ABSOLUTE COLLECTION SERVICE,
Defendant.
1:12CV811
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This
case
comes
before
the
undersigned
United
States
Magistrate Judge sua sponte to address Plaintiff’s failure to
comply with court orders.
should
dismiss
this
For the reasons that follow, the Court
case
pursuant
to
Federal
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure 41(b).
BACKGROUND
This case began when Plaintiff (or someone using Plaintiff’s
name) filed a pro se Complaint (Docket Entry 2), along with an
Application
Application”)
for
Leave
(Docket
to
Proceed
In
Entry
1).
The
Forma
Pauperis
Complaint
(“IFP
contains
a
“PRELIMINARY STATEMENT,” which describes the case as “an action for
damages brought for damages for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq.; and for
damages for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) 15
U.S.C. §1681 et seq[.]”
(Docket Entry 2 at 1.)
It further
identifies Defendant as “a North Carolina Corporation, authorized
to do business in North Carolina.”
(Id. (emphasis added).)
After Plaintiff amended her IFP Application (Docket Entry 4),
the Court (per the undersigned Magistrate Judge) granted her pauper
status and ordered that she had to “prepar[e] and deliver[] to the
Clerk[]
the
correct
summons
for
service
on
each
defendant,
including the correct address and the name and title of the
individual to be served on behalf of a corporation . . . .”
(Docket Entry 5 at 1 (emphasis added).)
Court
promptly
mailed
to
Plaintiff)
That Order (which the
further
warned
that
a
“[f]ailure to prepare and deliver said summons within 15 days
. . . shall result in this case being dismissed without further
notice.”
(Id.; see also Docket Entry dated Aug. 16, 2012.)
The
summons form provided by (or by someone on behalf of) Plaintiff
(apparently, given the date of its docketing, prior to her receipt
of the foregoing Order)1 lacked the name and title of an individual
to receive service on behalf of Defendant.
1.)
(See Docket Entry 6 at
The United States Marshals Service mailed that summons as
completed.
(See Docket Entry 8.)
Despite the fact that, by then, Plaintiff would have received
the Court’s Order informing her of her obligation to provide a
summons form with a name and title of an individual to receive
1
The Court often receives completed summons forms along with
the initial case-opening documents, such as complaints and pauper
applications.
-2-
service of process for Defendant, Plaintiff (or someone acting in
her name) then filed a Request for Clerks [sic] Entry of Default
based on the insufficient service of the defective summons she had
provided.
(Docket Entry 9.)
The Clerk denied that request on the
ground that, “[a]lthough Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #2) states
that
Defendant
[documentation
is
a
North
regarding
Carolina
service
of
Corporation,
the
summons
neither
the
submitted
by
Plaintiff] nor the Request for Clerk’s Entry of Default show that
service
was
Defendant.”
made
upon
an
officer,
(Docket Entry 10 at 1.)
that Denial to Plaintiff.
director
or
agent
of
the
The Court promptly mailed
(See Docket Entry dated Oct. 10, 2012.)
The undersigned Magistrate Judge took note of the insufficient
summons submitted by (or on behalf of) Plaintiff, as well as the
fact that her Complaint shared a number of unusual similarities of
form and substance with other complaints filed in this Court,
including: 1) stating, under the heading “JURISDICTION AND VENUE,”
that “jurisdiction of this Court is conferred by 15 U.S.C. §1681p”
and that “[v]enue is proper in this Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1391b”; 2) setting forth virtually identical sections (including
as to content, format, style, and even typographical/scrivener
errors) entitled “COUNT I,” “COUNT II,” “15 U.S.C 1681b,” and
“COUNT III”; and 3) listing on the signature page an e-mail address
consisting of the respective plaintiff’s first and last name
(strung together as one term) appended to “_law@hotmail.com” (or,
-3-
in one case, “_law@live.com”).
(Compare Docket Entry 2, with
Wiggins v. Credit Mgmt., No. 1:11CV1093, Docket Entry 2; Wiggins v.
Firstpoint
Collections
Res.,
No.
1:12CV451,
Docket
Entry
2;
Ferguson v. North Carolina Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No.
1:12CV493, Docket Entry 2; Golden v. Firstpoint Collection Serv.,
No. 1:12CV875, Docket Entry 2; Shamberger v. Firstpoint Collection
Serv., No. 1:12CV876, Docket Entry 2; Golden v. Absolute Collection
Servs.,
No.
1:12CV956,
Docket
Entry
2;
Durham
v.
Absolute
Collection Servs., No. 1:12CV957, Docket Entry 2; Grant v. Absolute
Collection Servs., No. 1:12CV958, Docket Entry 2; Ferguson v.
Absolute Collection Serv., No. 1:12CV1023, Docket Entry 2; Golden
v.
NCO
Fin.
Sys.,
No.
1:12CV1097,
Docket
Entry
2;
James
v.
Firstpoint Collection Serv., No. 1:12CV1098, Docket Entry 2; and
Durham v. National Credit Sys., No. 1:12CV1099, Docket Entry 2.)
Given the foregoing circumstances, the undersigned Magistrate
Judge set this case for a status conference and placed 13 other
similar cases on for hearings/status conferences on the same
calendar.
(See Docket Entry 11.)
Plaintiff did not appear as
directed.
(See Docket Entry dated Nov. 26, 2012.)
Indeed, only
one of the plaintiffs from the other similar cases noticed for
proceedings on that date appeared and he denied preparing, signing,
or filing any documents in his case (or authorizing anyone else to
take such action), but did acknowledge that he had talked to
someone he knew only as “Mussa” about improving his credit record.
-4-
(See Grant, No. 1:12CV958, Docket Entry dated Nov. 26, 2012.)2
Shortly after failing to appear at the status conference, Plaintiff
(or someone acting on her behalf) submitted an Amended Complaint
(Docket Entry 12), along with a second summons form with the
additional line “ATTN: CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER,” but again without a
name of an individual to receive service on behalf of Defendant
(Docket Entry 12-1 at 1), despite the fact that Plaintiff long
since would have received a clear directive from the Court of that
requirement and the consequences of failing to comply.
DISCUSSION
“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recognize that courts
must have the authority to control litigation before them, and this
authority includes the power to order dismissal of an action for
failure to comply with court orders.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).”
Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989).
Plaintiff
disobeyed the Court’s Orders to submit a properly-completed summons
form and to appear at a status conference.
These circumstances
warrant dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
In making this recommendation, the undersigned Magistrate
Judge recognizes that “dismissal is not a sanction to be invoked
lightly.”
Id.
Generally, before dismissing an action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a court should consider:
2
The Clerk maintains an
proceedings from that calendar.
-5-
audio-recording
of
all
the
“(i) the degree of personal responsibility of the plaintiff;
(ii) the amount of prejudice caused the defendant; (iii) the
existence of a history of deliberately proceeding in a dilatory
fashion; and (iv) the existence of a sanction less drastic than
dismissal.”
Id.
In this case, Plaintiff (or whoever improperly
filed this case in her name) bears sole responsibility for the
instant
non-compliance,
the
conduct
(and
inaction)
at
issue
prejudiced Defendant by delaying the litigation unduly (and thus
depriving Defendant of the opportunity to defend against this
apparent sham lawsuit while memories remained freshest and before
the possible loss of key documents), the record reflects a pattern
of dilatory conduct by Plaintiff (or whoever filed this case in her
name), and no other sanction appears feasible or sufficient.
As
to
that
last
point,
the
Court
(per
the
undersigned
Magistrate Judge) specifically warned Plaintiff that her failure to
submit a timely, properly-completed summons form could result in
dismissal of this case.
“In view of th[at] warning, the [Court]
ha[s] little alternative to dismissal. Any other course would have
[the effect of] plac[ing] the credibility of the [C]ourt in doubt
and invit[ing] abuse.”
Id.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
/s/ L. Patrick Auld
L. Patrick Auld
United States Magistrate Judge
June 4, 2013
-6-
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?