Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-1_15-cv-00123/USCOURTS-alnd-1_15-cv-00123-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

BRIAN R. TINSLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

BP CORPORATION NORTH

AMERICA, INC. and BP

AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-CV-123-VEH

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. Introduction and Procedural History

Plaintiff Brian R. Tinsley (“Mr. Tinsley”), who is proceeding pro se, initiated

this breach of contract action on January 23, 2015. (Doc. 1). The case arises out of

Mr. Tinsley’s efforts to become a commissioned broker of petroleumproductsfor BP

Corp. and/or BP America, which began in February 2013. (Doc. 15 at 4 ¶ 15). 

The four defendants originally named in his lawsuit were BP Corporation

North America, Inc. (“BP Corp.”), BP America, Inc. (“BP America”), Craig Cerise

(“Mr. Cerise”), and Lynette Otto (“Ms. Otto”). (Doc. 15). After the court’s dismissal

order (Doc. 36) entered on June 16, 2015, in response to Defendants’ Motion To

Dismiss (Doc. 25), the two defendants that remain are BP Corp. and BP America. 

FILED

 2015 Jul-21 PM 02:07

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 1:15-cv-00123-VEH Document 39 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 5
Within this same June dismissal order, the court noted numerous deficiencies

with Mr. Tinsley’s complaint and required him to replead only his plausible claims

no later than July 20, 2015, or risk a dismissal of his entire case. (See Doc. 36 at 16

(“The court cautions Mr. Tinsley that the failure to replead his complaint in an

acceptable manner that comports with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as

required by this order may result in a dismissal of his entire case with

prejudice.”)). This deadline has passed without any filing from Mr. Tinsley. Under

such circumstances and as explained more fully below, the court concludes that Mr.

Tinsley’s case against BP Corp. and BP America is due to be dismissed without

prejudice sua sponte.

II. Analysis

As the foregoing procedural history reveals, Mr. Tinsley has neither complied

with the requirement that he replead his claims nor provided any explanation for this

non-compliance. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f the plaintiff fails

to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to

dismiss the action or any claim against it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

Further, case law reinforces that, as a result of Mr. Tinsley’s failure to comply

with the repleader order or otherwise indicate an intent that he still wishes to pursue

claims against BP Corp. and BP Amercia (e.g., such as by seeking an extension of

2

Case 1:15-cv-00123-VEH Document 39 Filed 07/21/15 Page 2 of 5
time in which to restate his complaint), the court possesses the inherent power to

dismiss his case sua sponte. See Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31,

82 S. Ct. 1386, 1389, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1962) (“The authority of a court to dismiss sua

sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power,’

governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to

manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of

cases.”); see also Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985) (“The

court’s power to dismissis an inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its orders and

insure prompt disposition of lawsuits.” (citing Link, 370 U.S. at 630-31, 82 S. Ct. at

1388-89)); cf. Gratton v. Great American Communications, 178 F.3d 1373, 1374

(11th Cir. 1999) (recognizing that court has broad authority under Rule 37 to control

discovery and enforce its orders); cf. also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (“[These rules] should be

construed and administered to secure the just,speedy, and inexpensive determination

of every action and proceeding.”) (emphasis added). 

“While dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard of an

order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of

discretion.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added)

(citing State Exchange Bank v. Hartline, 693 F.2d 1350, 1352 (11thCir. 1982)). Here,

by virtue of the court’s order requiring repleader, Mr. Tinsley was put on notice that

3

Case 1:15-cv-00123-VEH Document 39 Filed 07/21/15 Page 3 of 5
the court would consider dismissing his case for lack of prosecution if he failed to

timely and adequately comply (Doc. 36 at 16) and, nonetheless, he ignored that

warning and filed nothing. “[A] plaintiff who ignore[s] notices and orders of the court

[is not] excused merely because of h[is] pro se status.” Moon, 863 F.2d at 838 n.5

(citing Anthony v. Marion County General Hospital, 617 F.2d 1164, 1169 (5th Cir.

1980));1see also Moon, 863 F.2d at 837 (“[O]nce a pro se IFP litigant is in court, he

is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.”). 

Guided by the foregoing legal framework, the court concludes that dismissing

Mr. Tinsley’s action against BP Corp. and BP America “without prejudice” (rather

than “with prejudice”) is the most appropriate measure to take, especially as Mr.

Tinsley is representing himself. Cf. Phipps v. Blakeny, 8 F.3d 788, 790-91 (11th Cir.

1993) (“When the record clearly demonstrates that a plaintiff deliberately and

defiantly refused to comply with several court orders on discovery and tells the court

that he will not comply in the future, a district judge has the authority to deny that

plaintiff further access to the court to pursue the case.”). Simply put, a “without

prejudice” dismissal means that the merits of Mr. Tinsley’s claims against BP Corp.

1

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the

Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down

prior to October 1, 1981.

4

Case 1:15-cv-00123-VEH Document 39 Filed 07/21/15 Page 4 of 5
and BP America, if any, are not barred from further litigation by such an order.

Further, a “without prejudice” dismissal is consistent with the court’s prior dismissal

of Mr. Cerise and Ms. Otto for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Doc. 36 at 14).

III. Conclusion

Therefore, Mr. Tinsley’s claims against the remaining defendantsBP Corp. and

BP America are due to be dismissed without prejudice due to his failure to prosecute

as provided for under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the express

requirements of this court’s June 16, 2015, memorandum opinion and order. Further,

in the absence of any other claims pending and consistent with the court’s

unambiguous forewarning, Mr. Tinsley’s lawsuit is due to be dismissed without

prejudice as well. The court will enter a separate order in conformance with this

memorandum opinion.

DONE and ORDERED this the 21st day of July, 2015.

 

 VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS

United States District Judge

5

Case 1:15-cv-00123-VEH Document 39 Filed 07/21/15 Page 5 of 5