IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 NORTHERN DIVISION 

ANTHONY BERNARD MOORER, ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) Case No. 2:06-CV-672-WKW-WC 

) 

CITY OF MONTGOMERY; ) 

BERNARD HARRIS, individually; and ) 

THOMAS PROVITT, individually, ) 

Defendants. ) 

MOTION TO STRIKE OR FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

COME NOW Defendants City of Montgomery, Bernard Harris and Thomas 

Provitt, and respectfully request that this Court strike Plaintiff’s Response in Objection to 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 30) as untimely, and as grounds state: 

1. Defendants filed Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 24) 

and Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 25) on 

November 16, 2007. 

2. In its Order (Doc. 20), filed April 13, 2007, this Court ordered that “the 

opponent’s brief and responsive submission shall be filed not later than 21 days [after the 

filing of the dispositive motion].” (Doc. 20, at ¶ 2). Thus, Plaintiff’s response was due on 

or before December 7, 2007. 

3. Further, in its Scheduling Order (Doc. 19), filed April 13, 2007, this Court 

ordered that “The failure to file a response to any motion – either dispositive or nondispositive – within the time allowed by the court (ten (10) days) shall indicate that there 

is no opposition to the motion. (Doc. 19, at Section 6). 

4. This Court has held that “while the court must grant latitude when 

construing pleadings filed by pro se plaintiffs, it is not required generally, nor is the court 

Case 2:06-cv-00672-WKW-WC Document 31 Filed 12/28/2007 Page 1 of 3
2 

inclined in this case, to grant latitude with respect to a pro se party's failure to comply 

with court-ordered deadlines.” Fraley v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2006 WL 2381878 (M.D. 

Ala. 2006), citing Wayne v. Jarvis, 197 F.3d 1098, 1104 (referring to pro se filings, 

noting, “Liberal construction does not mean liberal deadlines.”). In Fraley, pro se parties 

filed their response to a motion for summary judgment after the deadline for doing so, 

and this Court directed the untimely response to be stricken from the record, and 

accordingly would not consider the stricken response in considering whether summary 

judgment was proper. 

5. Here, as in Fraley, the pro se Plaintiff has file an objection to Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment three weeks after it was due. Plaintiff cannot plead 

ignorance as to the meaning and import of the Scheduling Order, as he has already shown 

he is familiar with the deadlines in the Scheduling Order by timely filing, on his own, a 

Notice of Mediation and Settlement Conference. 

6. Plaintiff’s Response in Objection to Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment (Doc. 30) is untimely, and should therefore be stricken from the record. 

WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Court strike Plaintiff’s 

Response in Objection to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 30), or in 

the alternative order Plaintiff to show good cause why it should not be stricken. 

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of December, 2007. 

/s/ Allison H. Highley .

Allison H. Highley (HIG024) 

Counsel for Defendants 

City of Montgomery 

Legal Department 

Post Office Box 1111 

Montgomery, AL 36101-1111 

(334) 241-2050 Telephone 

Case 2:06-cv-00672-WKW-WC Document 31 Filed 12/28/2007 Page 2 of 3
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 28, 2007, I sent a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing to the Plaintiff via U.S. mail, first-class postage pre-paid to: 

Anthony Moorer 

4240 Green Meadow Drive 

Montgomery, Alabama 36108 

/s/ Allison H. Highley .

Allison H. Highley (HIG024) 

Case 2:06-cv-00672-WKW-WC Document 31 Filed 12/28/2007 Page 3 of 3