Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00050/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00050-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick N. Anderson
Plaintiff
Bishop State Community College
Defendant

Document Text:

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PATRICK N. ANDERSON )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION 04-0050-CG-D

 )

BISHOP STATE COMMUNITY )

COLLEGE )

 )

Defendant. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff brought this action against defendant alleging discrimination and harassment under Title

IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

(Doc. 1) This action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4), and is now before the court on plaintiff’s failure to prosecute

and failure to obey the court’s orders. (Doc. 9)

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed the instant action against defendant Bishop State on or about January 23, 2004

alleging claims of harassment, discrimination based on race, sex and sexual orientation, conspiracy and

violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Case 1:04-cv-00050-CG-D Document 11 Filed 08/05/05 Page 1 of 6
1

 In 2003 plaintiff filed a similar action against defendant Bishop State Community College,

alleging claims under various amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and

Title IX. See Patrick Anderson v. Bishop State Community College, 03-595-CB-B. On

April 26, 2005 Senior United States District Judge Charles R. Butler, Jr., upon sua sponte review of

plaintiff’s amended complaint, entered an order dismissing plaintiff’s claims on the grounds, in sum that

the they failed to state a claim against the defendant. 

2

 The docket sheet reflects that no amended complaint has been filed with the court in this

action. 

2

Constitution. (Doc. 1) 1 On July 22, 2004 plaintiff paid the requisite filing fee. (Doc. 6) The matter

came before the court on status review and on June 30, 2005 the undersigned issued an order directing

plaintiff to show cause on or before July 19, 2005 why he failed to serve the defendant within 120 days

of filing the complaint. (Doc. 7) In response to the court’s order the plaintiff filed a document entitled

“Effective Summon on the Defendant”(Doc. 8) wherein plaintiff maintained that he “have [sic] already

service summon on the defendant and copies of the plaintiff’s complaint and amended complaint to the

Title IX Officer of Bishop State Community College and file it in this District Court.” (Doc. 8) 2 

The undersigned then issued a second order on July 25, 2005 noting the deficiencies in

plaintiff’s “service” as described in his response. (Doc. 9) Specifically, the court noted that: 

Plaintiff does not indicate when he maintains this service was effected, nor does he

respond to the court’s show cause order directing him to explain his failure to serve the

defendant within 120 days of filing the complaint. Plaintiff’s lone representation that he

“served” the defendant is insufficient under the rules. See Rule 4, of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. Moreover, the docket sheet reflects

that no summons has been issued by

the court in this matter. 

(Id.) In the order, the undersigned set out the service requirements, quoting Rule 4 at length. (Id.) 

Plaintiff was ordered to file the necessary information with the Clerk to prepare the summons, (e.g, the

name of the person who may accept service of process for defendant, the correct address, etc.) and

Case 1:04-cv-00050-CG-D Document 11 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 6
3

was further ordered to respond to the court’s original order directing plaintiff show cause why he failed

to serve defendant within 120 days of filing the complaint. (Id.) Plaintiff was “strongly cautioned that

the failure to respond to this court’s orders as directed will result in a recommendation of dismissal of

this action for failure to prosecute and failure to obey the court’s orders.” (Id.) (emphasis in original) 

In response to the court’s July 25, 2005 directive, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Effective

Summon” (Doc. 10). The document, which is dated July 27, 2005 and bears the signature of “Patrick

N. Anderson” states, in full, as follows:

Since the undersigned said, the pro se Plaintiff is ignorance of the law, so Plaintiff will

continually say he already service the summon upon Mrs. Madeline Stokes Bishop

State Community College Main Campus Mobile Alabama 36603-5898, and file it in

the District Court and will not show cause nothing. Everybody in Mobile County and

the surrounding areas are VERY STUPID, VERY IGNORANCE, VERY RUDE

and cannot give the Plaintiff nothing. You can do what you want with this case; you do

not know me at all. 

(Doc. 10) (emphasis in original) 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s recalcitrant attitude toward this court and toward these proceedings is evident in his

pleadings. Although plaintiff has been given every opportunity to proceed with this action, he

steadfastly refuses to comply with the rules of this court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Plaintiff’s response that he “will not show cause nothing” and “[y]ou can do want you want with this

case...” reflects his defiant attitude and general disrespect for this institution. In addition, although he

has been cautioned on prior occasions by other judges in this court to refrain from including derogatory

Case 1:04-cv-00050-CG-D Document 11 Filed 08/05/05 Page 3 of 6
3

 In February 2005, Chief Judge Callie V.S. Granade addressed plaintiff’s propensity for

invoking derogatory language in his pleadings and warned that any future pleadings of that nature would

be stricken. See Patrick N. Anderson v. District Two (The Black Community), 04-0060-CG-M 

Judge Granade stated, in pertinent part:

“The court notes that many, if not all, of plaintiff’s pleadings in this and plaintiff’s other

cases in this court contain inflammatory remarks about the defendants and/or

defendants’ counsel. The court finds the inclusion of such inflammatory statements in

court pleadings to be totally unacceptable, and if plaintiff files any more papers in this

court including like language, those pleadings will be stricken. It is FURTHER

ORDERED that Patrick N. Anderson shall cease and desist from filing pleadings in any

action in this court which contain unnecessarily abusive, derisive, or invective language.”

Id. 

4

and inflammatory language in his pleadings, plaintiff continues to ignore those warnings. 3

Due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s orders the undersigned concludes that

plaintiff has abandoned the prosecution of his action. Upon consideration of the alternatives available to

the court and of the time and resources expended by defendants in defending this action, it is

recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure as no other lesser sanction will suffice. See 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); Blunt v. U. S. Tobacco Co., 856 F.2d

192 (6th Cir. 1988) (unpublished); Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1983); Jones

v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983). Accord Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S.

Case 1:04-cv-00050-CG-D Document 11 Filed 08/05/05 Page 4 of 6
5

32, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (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. 1993) (the court’s inherent power to

manage actions before it permitted the imposition of fines), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 863, 114 S.Ct. 181,

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

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, it is the recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate Judge

that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for failure to comply with the court’s orders and failure to

prosecute. 

The attached sheet contains important information regarding objections to the Report and

Recommendation.

DONE this 5th day of August, 2005.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00050-CG-D Document 11 Filed 08/05/05 Page 5 of 6
6

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)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988). 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, in part, 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. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing party may submit a brief

opposing the objection within ten (10) days of being served with a copy of the statement of objection. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

3. 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 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.

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:04-cv-00050-CG-D Document 11 Filed 08/05/05 Page 6 of 6