IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY JOHNSON and )

PATRICIA MALONE, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO 05-0380-P-L

)

GUSTAV WEEKE MASCHINENBAU )

GmbH; GLEASON REEL )

CORPORATION; REXEL ELECTRICAL )

SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., )

)

Defendants )

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the motion to dismiss filed by defendant Rexel Electrical

Supply Company, Inc. (Doc. 4) which has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2 for the Southern District of Alabama, for a report and

recommendation. Rexel moves this court to dismiss the case as to plaintiff Patricia Malone because she

failed to sign the complaint as required by Rule 11 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule

11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rexel argues that Gregory Johnson signed the complaint

but he is not an attorney and can not sign in a representative capacity for Malone. Rule 11(a) sets forth

as follows:

Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least

one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, or, if the party is not

represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. Each paper shall state the

signer's address and telephone number, if any. Except when otherwise specifically

provided by rule or statute, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit.

Case 1:05-cv-00380-KD-C Document 8 Filed 06/30/05 Page 1 of 2
An unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected

promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party.

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11. The last sentence of the Rule indicates that the unsigned complaint as to

Malone “shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the

attention of the attorney or party.” Id. 

Accordingly, plaintiff Patricia Malone is ORDERED to sign and file a complaint on or before

July 20, 2005 if she wishes to continue this action. Moreover, plaintiff Malone is warned that failure to

comply with this order by the above stated date may be considered an abandonment of prosecution of

this action by plaintiff Malone and may result in a recommendation that this case as to plaintiff Malone

be dismissed pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). See Link v. Wabash R. R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82

S.Ct. 1386 (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); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th

Cir. 1989), cert. denied, Ballard v. Volunteers of America, 493 U.S. 1084, 110 S.Ct. 1145 (1990);

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

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

1993)(finding that 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 (1993). 

DONE this the 29th day of June, 2005. 

/s / Kristi D. Lee 

KRISTI D. LEE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-00380-KD-C Document 8 Filed 06/30/05 Page 2 of 2