Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00155/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00155-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

JAMES STINSON, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:15-cv-155-WKW 

 ) 

DIANCA MCDANIELS, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF 

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the court is Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) and second Motion for 

Extension of Time (Doc. 6), wherein Plaintiff seeks ninety additional days to pay the 

required filing fee or complete and return the application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

On March 16, 2015, the District Judge entered an Order referring this matter to the 

undersigned Magistrate Judge “for further proceedings and determination or 

recommendation as may be appropriate.” Order (Doc. 2). 

At the time Plaintiff filed his complaint on March 10, 2015, he did not submit an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis and he did not pay the required filing fee. See

(Doc. 1). Rather than recommending that the case be dismissed, the undersigned ordered 

Plaintiff to either pay the fee or file the application to proceed in forma pauperis on or 

before March 30, 2015. (Doc. 3). In the order, Plaintiff was “warned that failure to 

comply with this Order will result in the undersigned’s recommendation that this case 

Case 2:15-cv-00155-WKW-WC Document 7 Filed 04/27/15 Page 1 of 5
2 

be dismissed.” Id. at 1 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff then filed his first motion for 

extension (Doc. 4), which was granted to the extent that Plaintiff was given until April 

22, 2015, to comply with the court’s order. Order (Doc. 5). Again, Plaintiff was “warned 

that failure to comply with this Order will result in the undersigned’s recommendation 

that this case be dismissed.” Id. at 1 (emphasis in original). Accordingly, Plaintiff was 

allotted an additional forty-three days from the date he filed his complaint to pay the 

requisite filing fee or return the application to proceed in forma pauperis that was mailed 

to Plaintiff with each of the court’s orders, and Plaintiff was twice warned that failure to 

comply would result in a recommendation of dismissal. 

Rather than complying with the court’s order, Plaintiff filed a second motion for 

extension of time (Doc. 6), which is identical to the first motion for extension. Plaintiff 

avers that, because he is currently incarcerated, he “is at a Financial, as well as Legal, 

disadvantage.” Id. at 1 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff explains that he is “to be released 

on April 30, 2015, and Plaintiff will be better equipped to proper handle his Financial 

obligations to this Court.” Id. Plaintiff continues as follows: 

The Plaintiff is requesting ninety (90) days, because, upon arriving 

home, the Plaintiff will need time to tend to his Medical and Financial 

Matters immediately, and this will take some time. Also the Plaintiff will 

need time to adjust to his re-entry into society. 

The Plaintiff does not request this extension of time for the purpose 

of delaying his proceedings, in fact quite the opposite is true, the Plaintiff 

would like these proceedings to be expedited upon his release. 

Id. at 2. 

Case 2:15-cv-00155-WKW-WC Document 7 Filed 04/27/15 Page 2 of 5
3 

 “Parties instituting a civil action in district court are required to pay filing fees,” 

unless the litigant is granted leave to proceed without prepayment of fees by filing an 

affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis. Castro v. Dir., F.D.I.C., 449 F. App’x 786, 788 

(11th Cir. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a, c), 1915(A)(1)-(2)). 

By repeatedly failing to pay the required filing fee or complete and return the 

application to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff has failed to properly file this action. 

The fact that Plaintiff is incarcerated does not excuse him from his obligation to orderly 

prosecute his action and comply with orders from the court. Additionally, incarcerated 

plaintiffs frequently file lawsuits in this court and either pay the filing fee or seek leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis; Plaintiff has not shown any special circumstances that make 

him unable to do the same. Indeed, if Plaintiff is at a “financial disadvantage,” as he 

asserts, it behooves him all the more to simply complete and return the in forma pauperis

application this court has provided him on two occasions. Instead, Plaintiff has 

responded to the court’s order by disregarding the form provided by the court and mailing 

the court identical motions for extensions of time. Lastly, Plaintiff seeks three months to 

“adjust to re-entry into society” and then, when he is ready to prosecute his action, he 

requests that the court expedite his case. The court’s schedule and process do not operate 

at Plaintiff’s whim. This matter should be dismissed without prejudice.1

 

 

1

 The court would also note that Plaintiff’s complaint appears to be frivolous on its face. Plaintiff does 

not state any cause of action under which he seeks relief and does not provide a basis for this court’s 

jurisdiction. Further, to the extent any “claims” are discernible, they appear to be time-barred as all 

events discussed in the complaint took place in or before 2011. See Lufkin v. McCallum, 956 F.2d 1104, 

1105 (11th Cir.1992); Ala. Code § 6–2–38(l) (the general statute of limitations in Alabama is two years). 

Case 2:15-cv-00155-WKW-WC Document 7 Filed 04/27/15 Page 3 of 5
4 

For the reasons stated above, it is 

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second the Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 6) is 

DENIED. 

Further, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s 

complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to pay the requisite filing fee or 

file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, failure to prosecute this action, and 

failure to comply with orders of the court. Further, it is 

 ORDERED that Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file any objections to the said 

Recommendation on or before May 11, 2015. Any objections filed must specifically 

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party is 

objecting. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered by the 

District Court. 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 and recommendations in 

the Magistrate Judge’s report 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 

(5th Cir. 1982); see Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see 

also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (adopting as 

binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to 

the close of business on September 30, 1981). 

Case 2:15-cv-00155-WKW-WC Document 7 Filed 04/27/15 Page 4 of 5
5 

 Done this 27th day of April, 2015. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-00155-WKW-WC Document 7 Filed 04/27/15 Page 5 of 5