Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-4_14-cv-02106/USCOURTS-alnd-4_14-cv-02106-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MIDDLE DIVISION

RALSTON E. SAMUELS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEVIN DEMERIN, et al.,

Defendants.

]

]

]

]

]

]

]

]

]

]

]

Case No.: 4:14-cv-2106-KOB

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on “Defendant Demerin’s Motion to Dismiss or, in

the Alternative, For Summary Judgment.” (Doc. 39).

On October 30, 2014, pro se Plaintiff Ralston Samuels filed the instant suit against

Defendants Kevin Demerin and William Shane Ballow1, alleging violations of Bivens v. Six

Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Doc. 1).

On August 20, 2015, Defendant Ballow filed a Motion to Dismiss the claim asserted

against him. (Doc. 34). The court in turn entered an Order to Show Cause, directing Samuels to

show cause in writing on or before September 21, 2015 why the court should not grant Ballow’s

motion. (Doc. 35). Recognizing the difficulties faced by Samuels as a pro se plaintiff litigating

this case from Jamaica, the court allowed Samuels more time than usual – 30 days – to respond

to this Order. (Id.). 

1

 Samuels originally asserted a claim against Defendant John Doe, but the court later

substituted William Shane Ballow for John Doe after ICE identified Ballow as the person

responsible for approving detainees’ medical orders. (Doc.16).

1

FILED

 2015 Nov-06 PM 03:11

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 4:14-cv-02106-KOB Document 44 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 3
On September 17, 2015, the court held a telephone conference with Samuels and

Defendants’ counsel. In this conference, the court reminded Samuels of his obligation to respond

to the Order to Show Cause. Samuels assured the court that his response to the court’s Order to

Show Cause on Ballow’s motion was “in the mail” on its way to the clerk’s office. In this

conference, counsel for the Defendants also informed the court and Samuels that Defendant

Kevin Demerin would soon be filing a separate Motion to Dismiss.

Following this conference, on September 18, 2015, Defendant Demerin filed the Motion

to Dismiss that is the subject of this Order. (Doc. 39). The court entered a second Order to Show

Cause, directing Samuels to show cause in writing on or before October 23, 2015 why the court

should not grant Demerin’s motion. (Doc. 40).

Thereafter, on September 28, 2015, the court received Samuels’s response to the first

Order to Show Cause. (Doc. 41). The court considered the merits of Ballow’s Motion to Dismiss

as well as Samuels’s response2 and determined that Ballow’s motion was due to be granted.

Accordingly, the court dismissed Samuels’s claim against Defendant William Shane Ballow.

(Doc. 43).

To date, the court has received no response from Samuels on its second Order to Show

Cause, regarding the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Demerin. (Doc. 40). The second

Order to Show Cause was sent to the same address as the first Order to Show Cause, to which

Samuels responded. Samuels has neither provided the court with a new mailing address, nor has

the second Order to Show Cause been returned to the court as undeliverable. Thus, the court

2

 The court considered Samuels’s response even though it was filed a week after the

deadline set by the court in its first Order to Show Cause.

2

Case 4:14-cv-02106-KOB Document 44 Filed 11/06/15 Page 2 of 3
presumes that Samuels did receive the court’s second Order to Show Cause. Further, on

September 17, defense counsel advised Samuels that Demerin’s Motion to Dismiss would be

filed soon after the conference call, so Samuels should have been looking for it. Consequently,

the court finds that Samuels has failed to comply with this court’s Order and has failed to

otherwise prosecute his claim against Demerin. 

Therefore, the court will GRANT Demerin’s Motion to Dismiss; DISMISS WITHOUT

PREJUDICE Samuels’s claim against Demerin; and as this claim is the only remaining claim in

the case, DISMISS the case, costs taxed as paid.

DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of November, 2015.

 ____________________________________

 KARON OWEN BOWDRE

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 4:14-cv-02106-KOB Document 44 Filed 11/06/15 Page 3 of 3