Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00628/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00628-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

KENDALL PACKER, #225225, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-628-MHT

)

ALA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, )

)

 Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Kendall Packer (“Packer”), an inmate incarcerated at the J. O. Davis Correctional

Facility, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 31, 2015. In the instant complaint, Packer

challenges the constitutionality of his classification as a restricted offender upon his

placement into the custody of the Alabama Department ofCorrections in September of 2002. 

Packer did not submit the $350 filing fee or $50 administrative 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. 3. In support of this request, Packer

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 byPacker and pursuant

to the requisite provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A), the court determined that Packer

owed an initial partial filing fee of $26.39. Order of September 15, 2015 - Doc. No. 4 at 1-2. 

Case 2:15-cv-00628-MHT-WC Document 9 Filed 12/03/15 Page 1 of 4
The court therefore ordered that Packer pay the initial partial filing fee on or before

September 30, 2015. Id. at 2. In addition, this order specifically informed Packer “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 [Packer] 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 Packer 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 exist.” Id. 

Based on a response filed by Packer on October 8, 2015, the court granted him

additional time, i.e., until November 2, 2015, to file the initial partial filing fee. Order of

October 13, 2015 - Doc. No. 7. Packer, however, failed to pay the initial partial filing fee

within the time allowed by the aforementioned order. Consequently, the court issued an

order that Packet show cause on or before November 18, 2015 why he had filed to pay the

requisite fee in compliance with the orders issued in this case. Order of November 5, 2015 -

Doc. No. 8. 

Packer has filed no response to the recent show cause order nor has he paid the initial

partial filing fee. The court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. Moon

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

2

Case 2:15-cv-00628-MHT-WC Document 9 Filed 12/03/15 Page 2 of 4
forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.); see also

Tanner v. Neal, 232 F. App’x 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal 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 consequences for failure to

comply). 

Accordingly, it is the 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. It

is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before December 17, 2015. A party must specifically identify the

factual findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made;

frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written

objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance with the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the

District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the

right of the party to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to

factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds

of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); 11th

Cir. R. 3-1; see Stein v. Lanning Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see also

3

Case 2:15-cv-00628-MHT-WC Document 9 Filed 12/03/15 Page 3 of 4
Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). The parties are

advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not

appealable.

Done this 3rd day of December, 2015.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:15-cv-00628-MHT-WC Document 9 Filed 12/03/15 Page 4 of 4