From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clayton v. Williams

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION
May 12, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:16-cv-151 (S.D. Ga. May. 12, 2017)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:16-cv-151

05-12-2017

EARNEST CLAYTON, Plaintiff, v. STANLEY WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants.


ORDER and MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville, Georgia, filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contesting certain conditions of his confinement. (Doc. 1.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to amend his Complaint and resubmit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Complaint and a new Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Docs. 9, 10.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, (docs. 5, 10). In addition, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case, and DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

BACKGROUND

In his original Complaint, Plaintiff named 37 Defendants and alleged a litany of unrelated claims. Plaintiff complained that (1) he did not have a sanitary toilet; (2) prison staff failed to protect him against other inmate assaults; (3) prison staff exhibited deliberate indifference to his medical needs; (4) prison staff retaliated against him and; (5) prison staff used excessive force against him. In the Court's January 24, 2017, Order, the Court advised Plaintiff that "his claims appear to be unrelated to each other, and [the] Court [would] not permit him to pursue unrelated claims in a single cause of action." (Doc. 8, p. 6.) The Court directed Plaintiff to submit a new Complaint in compliance with its Order within fourteen (14) days. (Id. at p. 5.) In response, Plaintiff filed two Amended Complaints, (docs. 9, 11), against two separate groups of Defendants. However, each of these Amended Complaints still asserts multiple, unrelated claims, including: equal protection claims; cruel and unusual punishment claims regarding insufficient drinking water and sanitary toilets; deliberate indifference claims regarding Plaintiff's protection from other inmates; and retaliation claims. Furthermore, the majority of Plaintiff's Amended Complaints simply repeats his prior, unrelated allegations.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Plaintiff seeks to bring this action in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), the Court may authorize the filing of a civil lawsuit without the prepayment of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all of his assets, shows an inability to pay the filing fee, and also includes a statement of the nature of the action which shows that he is entitled to redress. Even if the plaintiff proves indigence, the Court must dismiss the action if it is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). Additionally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review a complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity. Upon such screening, the Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or which seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

The Court looks to the instructions for pleading contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when reviewing a Complaint on an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ("A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain [among other things] . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."); Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 (requiring that claims be set forth in numbered paragraphs, each limited to a single set of circumstances). Further, a claim is frivolous under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) "if it is 'without arguable merit either in law or fact.'" Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001)).

Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Thompson v. Rundle, 393 F. App'x 675, 678 (11th Cir. 2010). Under that standard, this Court must determine whether the complaint contains "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A plaintiff must assert "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not" suffice. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Section 1915 also "accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)).

In its analysis, the Court will abide by the long-standing principle that the pleadings of unrepresented parties are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys and, therefore, must be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006) ("Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys.") (emphasis omitted) (quoting Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003)). However, Plaintiff's unrepresented status will not excuse mistakes regarding procedural rules. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) ("We have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.").

DISCUSSION

I. Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim and Failure to Follow this Court's Orders

This Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to amend his Complaint and provided specific instructions as to how Plaintiff could amend to state a plausible claim. (Doc. 8.) Specifically, the Court instructed Plaintiff to "include which claim or related claims (or, alternatively, which claims against which Defendants) Plaintiff wishe[d] to pursue in this action," and that he could file separate complaints for his other claims. (Id. at p. 6.) However, Plaintiff ignored the Court's instructions and instead submitted another "shotgun pleading" in which he asserts nearly all the claims he asserted in the original Complaint. Furthermore, with Plaintiff's stream-of-consciousness allegations, repetitive paragraphs, and illegible handwriting, it is difficult for the Court to decipher what claims against which Defendants Plaintiff is attempting to raise.

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, (docs. 9, 11), is still a "shotgun pleading" that is unclear as to which facts are "material to the particular cause of action asserted." Beckwith v. Bellsouth Telecomms. Inc., 146 F. App'x 368, 372 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear, 305 F.3d 1293, 1295 n.9 (11th Cir. 2002)). Despite the Court specifically reminding Plaintiff that he cannot "join unrelated claims and various defendants unless the claims 'arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action[,]'" Plaintiff has failed to follow this directive and attempts to do the very same. (Doc. 10, p. 5 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a).) Plaintiff's Complaint, as amended, does not state a cognizable claim and fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8's pleading requirements. Therefore, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim.

Moreover, Plaintiff has not followed this Court's Order. A district court may dismiss a plaintiff's claims for failure to follow a court order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) ("Rule 41(b)") and the court's inherent authority to manage its docket. Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962); Coleman v. St. Lucie Cty. Jail, 433 F. App'x 716, 718 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)). In particular, Rule 41(b) allows for the involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff's claims where he has failed to prosecute those claims, comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or local rules, or follow a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Coleman, 433 F. App'x at 718; Sanders v. Barrett, No. 05-12660, 2005 WL 2640979, at *1 (11th Cir. Oct. 17, 2005) (citing Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 192 (11th Cir. 1993)); cf. Local R. 41.1(b) ("[T]he assigned Judge may, after notice to counsel of record, sua sponte . . . dismiss any action for want of prosecution, with or without prejudice[,] . . . [based on] willful disobedience or neglect of any order of the Court." (emphasis omitted)). Additionally, a district court's "power to dismiss is an inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its orders and ensure prompt disposition of lawsuits." Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep't, 205 F. App'x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983)).

In Wabash, the Court held that a trial court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute "even without affording notice of its intention to do so." 370 U.S. at 633. Nonetheless, in the case at hand, the Court advised Plaintiff on several occasions of the consequences of his failure to comply with this Court's orders and failure to prosecute this case.

It is true that dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute is a "sanction . . . to be utilized only in extreme situations" and requires that a court "(1) conclud[e] a clear record of delay or willful contempt exists; and (2) mak[e] an implicit or explicit finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice." Thomas v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Educ., 170 F. App'x 623, 625-26 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Morewitz v. West of Eng. Ship Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass'n (Lux.), 62 F.3d 1356, 1366 (11th Cir. 1995)); see also Taylor v. Spaziano, 251 F. App'x 616, 619 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Morewitz, 62 F.3d at 1366). By contrast, dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute is not an adjudication on the merits, and, therefore, courts are afforded greater discretion in dismissing claims in this manner. Taylor, 251 F. App'x at 619; see also Coleman, 433 F. App'x at 719; Brown, 205 F. App'x at 802-03.

While the Court exercises its discretion to dismiss cases with caution, dismissal of this action without prejudice is warranted. See Coleman, 433 F. App'x at 719 (upholding dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute Section 1983 complaint, where plaintiff did not respond to court order to supply defendant's current address for purpose of service); Taylor, 251 F. App'x at 620-21 (upholding dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute, because plaintiffs insisted on going forward with deficient amended complaint rather than complying, or seeking an extension of time to comply, with court's order to file second amended complaint); Brown, 205 F. App'x at 802-03 (upholding dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute Section 1983 claims, where plaintiff failed to follow court order to file amended complaint and court had informed plaintiff that noncompliance could lead to dismissal). The Court warned Plaintiff in its Order that, if he "fail[ed] to abide by this directive, the Court w[ould] dismiss this case for failure to prosecute and failure to follow a court Order." (Id. at p. 6.) Plaintiff's utter disregarded of that warning warrants dismissal. See Taylor v. Spaziano, 251 F. App'x at 620-21.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Docs. 5, 10.) I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and for failure to follow this Court's Orders. II. Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis

The Court should also deny Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Though Plaintiff has, of course, not yet filed a notice of appeal, it would be appropriate to address these issues in the Court's order of dismissal. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3) (trial court may certify that appeal is not taken in good faith "before or after the notice of appeal is filed").

A certificate of appealability is not required in this Section 1983 action.

An appeal cannot be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Good faith in this context must be judged by an objective standard. Busch v. Cty. of Volusia, 189 F.R.D. 687, 691 (M.D. Fla. 1999). A party does not proceed in good faith when he seeks to advance a frivolous claim or argument. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). A claim or argument is frivolous when it appears the factual allegations are clearly baseless or the legal theories are indisputably meritless. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). Or, stated another way, an in forma pauperis action is frivolous and, thus, not brought in good faith, if it is "without arguable merit either in law or fact." Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Brown v. United States, Nos. 407CV085, 403CR001, 2009 WL 307872, at *1-2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009).

Based on the above analysis of Plaintiff's action, there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, and an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Thus, the Court should DENY Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on appeal.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Docs. 5, 10.) Additionally, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint, DIRECT the Clerk of Court enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal and to CLOSE this case, and DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

The Court ORDERS any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation to file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days of the date on which this Report and Recommendation is entered. Any objections asserting that the Magistrate Judge failed to address any contention raised in the Complaint must also be included. Failure to do so will bar any later challenge or review of the factual findings or legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). A copy of the objections must be served upon all other parties to the action. The filing of objections is not a proper vehicle through which to make new allegations or present additional evidence.

Upon receipt of Objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above, a United States District Judge will make a de novo determination of those portions of the report, proposed findings, or recommendation to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Objections not meeting the specificity requirement set out above will not be considered by a District Judge. A party may not appeal a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Appeals may be made only from a final judgment entered by or at the direction of a District Judge. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to serve a copy of this Report and Recommendation upon the Plaintiff.

SO ORDERED and REPORTED and RECOMMENDED, this 12th day of May, 2017.

/s/_________

R. STAN BAKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA


Summaries of

Clayton v. Williams

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION
May 12, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:16-cv-151 (S.D. Ga. May. 12, 2017)
Case details for

Clayton v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:EARNEST CLAYTON, Plaintiff, v. STANLEY WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION

Date published: May 12, 2017

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:16-cv-151 (S.D. Ga. May. 12, 2017)