Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00389/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00389-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JONATHAN SPEIGHT, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-00389-KD-B

MONROE COUNTY JAIL, :

Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama inmate who is proceeding pro se, filed

the instant case alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc.

1). This case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4) for

appropriate action. Because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute and

to comply with the Court’s Orders, it is recommended that this

action be dismissed without prejudice. 

Plaintiff filed this Section 1983 action while incarcerated at

Monroe County Detention Facility. (Doc. 1). After a review of

Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court entered an Order directing to refile his Complaint on the Court’s forms and to pay the $350.00

filing fee, or in lieu thereof, file a Motion to Proceed Without

Prepayment of Fees by September 11, 2006. (Doc. 2). Additionally,

the Clerk was directed to send to Plaintiff the appropriate Court

forms. (Id.) By Order dated October 4, 2006 (Doc. 4), Plaintiff

was granted an extension of time in which to comply with the

Case 1:06-cv-00389-KD-B Document 11 Filed 10/18/07 Page 1 of 6
2

Court’s Order. Thus, the deadline for submitting Plaintiff’s

complaint and motion to proceed without prepayment of fees was

extended to November 2, 2006. 

On October 23, 2006, Plaintiff filed a new complaint and a

motion to proceed without prepayment of fees on the correct forms

(Docs. 5, 6). In an Order dated April 16, 2007 (Doc. 8),

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed without prepayment of fees was denied

as deficient because it did not include the statutorily required

copy of the institutional record of Plaintiff’s inmate account

reflecting transactions in his account for the six-month period

immediately preceding the filing of his complaint, and was not

signed by an authorized prison official. (Doc. 8). Plaintiff was

granted leave to refile his motion by May 14, 2007, and was

directed to include the institutional record of Plaintiff’s prison

account along with a certificate completed by an authorized prison

official. (Id.). 

On April 23, 2007, the Court’s Order instructing Plaintiff to

re-file his motion and the Court form were returned to the Court

undelivered. (Doc. 9). As a result, court officials contacted the

Alabama Department of Corrections and learned that Plaintiff had

been transferred to Bibb Correctional Facility. Accordingly, the

Court issued an Order dated May 10, 2007 (Doc. 10), wherein the

time for Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s April 16, 2007 Order

was extended to June 14, 2007. The Clerk was directed to forward

Case 1:06-cv-00389-KD-B Document 11 Filed 10/18/07 Page 2 of 6
3

to Plaintiff at his new address a copy of both the Court’s April

16, 2007 Order (Doc. 8), and a copy of the May 10, 2007 Order (Doc.

10). To date, Plaintiff has not re-filed his motion to proceed

without prepayment of fees, nor has he paid the statutory $350.00

filing fee. 

Due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Orders,

his failure to prosecute this action, and upon consideration of the

alternatives that are available to the Court, it is recommended

that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule

41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as no other lesser

sanction will suffice. Link v. Wabash R. R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82

S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (interpreting Rule 41(b) not to

restrict the court's inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte an

action for lack of prosecution); World Thrust Films, Inc. v.

International Family Entertainment, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454, 1456-57

(11th Cir. 1995); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101,

102 (11th Cir. 1989); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th

Cir. 1985); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983).

Accord Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115

L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (ruling that federal courts' inherent power to

manage their own proceedings authorized the imposition of

attorney's fees and related expenses as a sanction); Malautea v.

Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545-46 (11th Cir.) (finding that

the court’s inherent power to manage actions before it permitted

Case 1:06-cv-00389-KD-B Document 11 Filed 10/18/07 Page 3 of 6
4

the imposition of fines), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 863, 114 S.Ct.

181, 126 L.Ed.2d 140 (1993).

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to this Report and Recommendation.

DONE this 18th day of October 2007.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00389-KD-B Document 11 Filed 10/18/07 Page 4 of 6
5

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of this

document, file specific written objections with the clerk of court.

Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the district

judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an attack, on

appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate judge. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)©); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir.

1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B,

1982)(en banc). The procedure for challenging the findings and

recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out in more detail

in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a

“Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days after being served with

a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time is

established by order. The statement of objection shall

specify those portions of the recommendation to which

objection is made and the basis for the objection. The

objecting party shall submit to the district judge, at

the time of filing the objection, a brief setting forth

the party’s arguments that the magistrate judge’s

recommendation should be reviewed de novo and a different

disposition made. It is insufficient to submit only a

copy of the original brief submitted to the magistrate

judge, although a copy of the original brief may be

submitted or referred to and incorporated into the brief

in support of the objection. Failure to submit a brief

in support of the objection may be deemed an abandonment

of the objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a

Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can

be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the magistrate

judge finds that the tapes and original records in this action are

adequate for purposes of review. Any party planning to object to

Case 1:06-cv-00389-KD-B Document 11 Filed 10/18/07 Page 5 of 6
6

this recommendation, but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is

advised that a judicial determination that transcription is

necessary is required before the United States will pay the cost of

the transcript.

DONE this 18th day of October 2007.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00389-KD-B Document 11 Filed 10/18/07 Page 6 of 6