Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_15-cv-00560/USCOURTS-almd-3_15-cv-00560-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

CEDRICK L. CRAWFORD, #215796, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-560-MHT

)

RAY SMITH, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause of action is before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed by

Cedrick L. Crawford (“Crawford”), a state inmate currently confined at the Fountain

Correctional Facility, on July 31, 2015. In the complaint, Crawford allegesthat in August

1

of 2007, the defendants, who are officers with the Lee County Sheriff’s Department,

conspired to deprive him of his property without a warrant. Complaint - Doc. No. 1 at 2.

Specifically, Crawford complains that “[o]n or about August 2007, defendants Smith and

Jackson acting in concert confiscated Plaintiff[’s] Aviator vehicle arbitrarily without a

warrant as required by law and arbitrarily forced Plaintiff to pay $700.00 plus to get his

vehicle back.” Id. at 3. Crawford did not submit the $350 filing fee or $50 administrative

The Clerk stamped the complaint “received” on August 4, 2015. Crawford verified the 1

complaint on July 31, 2015 and, therefore, this is the earliest date he could have placed the complaint in

the prison mail system. Complaint - Doc. No. 1 at 4. A pro se inmate’s complaint is deemed filed the

date it is delivered to prison officials for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271-272 (1988);

Adams v. United States, 173 F.3d 1339, 1340-41 (11 Cir. 1999); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 780 th

(11 Cir. 1993). Thus, the court considers July 31, 2015 as the date of filing. th

Case 3:15-cv-00560-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 09/15/15 Page 1 of 4
fee and, instead, filed a document seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis before this

court. Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees- Doc. No. 2. In support of this

request, Crawford provided financial information necessary to determine the average

monthly balance in his prison account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the

filing of this complaint and the average monthly deposits to his inmate account during the

past six months.

After a thorough review of the financial information provided by Crawford and

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A), the court determined that Crawford owed an initial

partial filing fee of $72.00. Order of August 7, 2015 - Doc. No. 3 at 1-2. The court

therefore ordered Crawford to pay the initial partial filing fee on or before August 24,

2015. Id. at 2. In addition, this order specifically informed Crawford “that it is his

responsibility to submit the appropriate paperwork to the prison account clerk for

transmission of his funds to this court for payment of the initial partial filing fee.” Id.

(emphasis in original). The order also “advised [Crawford] that if he is unable to procure

the initial partial filing fee within the time allowed by this court he must inform the court

of such inability and request an extension of time within which to file the fee.” Id. at 3.

Moreover, the court specifically cautioned Crawford that failure to pay the requisite fee

within the time allowed by the court would result in a Recommendation “that his case be

dismissed and such dismissal will not be reconsidered unless exceptional circumstances

2

Case 3:15-cv-00560-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 09/15/15 Page 2 of 4
exist.” Id.

Crawford has failed to pay the initial partial filing fee within the time allowed by

this court. The court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. Moon v.

Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11 Cir.1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been

th

forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.); see

also Tanner v. Neal, 232 Fed. Appx. 924 (11 Cir.2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal

th

without prejudice of inmate’s § 1983 action for failure to file an amended complaint in

compliance with court’s prior order directing amendment and warning of consequencesfor

failure to comply).

Accordingly, it isthe RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case

be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to pay the initial partial filing fee

in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A) as ordered by this court.

2

It is further

ORDERED that on or before September 29, 2015, the plaintiff may file objections

to the Recommendation. Any objection must specifically identify the findings in the

The plaintiff is advised that even had he paid the initial partial filing fee, this case would be 2

subject to summary dismissal with prejudice as the claims presented in the complaint are barred by the

statute of limitations relevant to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action filed in this court. McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d

1168, 1173 (11 Cir. 2008) (“All constitutional claims brought under § 1983 are tort actions, subject to th

the statute of limitations governing personal injury actions in the state where the § 1983 action has been

brought. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 275-76, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 1946-47, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985). [The

plaintiff’s] claim was brought in Alabama where the governing limitations period is two years. Ala. Code

§ 6-2-38; Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin, 876 F.2d 1480, 1483 (11 Cir. 1989) (en banc). Therefore, in order th

to have his claim heard, [the plaintiff is] required to bring it within two years from the date the

limitations period began to run.”). 

3

Case 3:15-cv-00560-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 09/15/15 Page 3 of 4
Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be

considered by the District Court. The plaintiff is advised that this Recommendation is not

a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings in the Recommendation

shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in

the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report

accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest

injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds

th

Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661

th

F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the

th

former Fifth Circuit issued prior to September 30, 1981.

DONE, this 15th day of September, 2015.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 3:15-cv-00560-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 09/15/15 Page 4 of 4