Mitchell v. Perdido Trucking

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RICO MITCHELL, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Civil Action No. 24-00304-KD-B
)
PERDIDO TRUCKING, LLC, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
The action is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Rico Mitchell’s (“Mitchell’s”) “Motion
to Object to Magistrate’s Order” (Doc. 49). Mitchell objects to Magistrate Judge Sonja F.
Bivins’ order that he respond to Defendant Perdido Trucking LLC’s discovery requests by
December 20, 2024 (Doc. 48).
Mitchell has refused to respond to Perdido’s discovery requests.1 At Perdido’s request,
Judge Bivins’ presided over a telephonic discovery conference for the parties on December 6,
2024. During the conference, Mitchell acknowledged that he received Perdido’s discovery
requests but believed he was not required to respond to them since he had filed a Motion to
Compel Perdido to respond to his brief and thought that paused the clock to respond to the
discovery requests. Judge Bivins explained to Mitchell that he is required to respond to
Perdido’s discovery requests, and warned Mitchell that if he did not respond, he would be
subject to sanctions.
Mitchell now objects to Judge Bivins’ Order compelling his responses (Doc. 49). He
alleges Perdido’s discovery requests are speculative and that the facts set forth in his Motion for
1 Perdido served its discovery on October 24, 2024.
Case 1:24-cv-00304-KD-B Doc# 53 Filed 12/18/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>

2
Summary Judgment should satisfy Perdido’s discovery requests. Mitchell also asserts that
Perdido has “two videos plus two additional videos of mechanical issues” and “should be good
to go now to proceed with” Perdido’s response to Mitchell’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Mitchell asks the Court to dismiss Judge Bivins’ order and relieve him of the obligation to
respond to Perdido’s discovery by December 20, 2024.
Non-dispositive pretrial matters may be referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). When a magistrate judge enters a decision, the “district judge … must
consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of” a magistrate judge’s order “that is
clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
Mitchell’s theories as to why he does not need to respond do not support a finding that
Judge Bivins’ decision is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. At the hearing, Judge Bivins
thoroughly explained to Mitchell that he was procedurally obligated to comply with Perdido’s
discovery requests, even if he thought that his brief and Motion for Summary Judgment provided
the same information to Perdido. Judge Bivins explained to Mitchell that the Rules of Procedure
require an answer to each interrogatory and require production of documents responsive to the
requests for production.
The Court finds no error. Mitchell must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
same as every other litigant. As part of that procedure, Mitchell must respond to Perdido’s
discovery request. Britt v. United States Gov't., 773 Fed. Appx. 494, 495-496 (11th Cir. 2019)
(even though the district courts “construe pro se pleadings liberally, pro se litigants are still
required to comply with the court’s procedural rules.”) (citing Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d
826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)).
Case 1:24-cv-00304-KD-B Doc# 53 Filed 12/18/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>

3
Additionally, Mitchell is warned that failure to comply with Judge Bivins’ Order to
respond to Perdido’s discovery requests, may result in dismissal of this action for failure to
comply with the Court’s orders. “A district court has the authority to sua sponte2 dismiss a
complaint for failure to comply with a court order.” Thomason v. Alabama Home Builders
Licensure Bd., 741 Fed. Appx. 638, 640-641(11th Cir. 2018) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and
Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)). “While
dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the
litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.” Thomason, 741 Fed. Appx.
at 640 (citing Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989)). See Purchasing Power
LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., 851 F. 3d 1218, 1223 (11th Cir. 2017) (the district court has
“inherent power” to “’sanction the willful disobedience of a court order, and to sanction a party
who has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.’”) (quoting Marx v.
Gen. Revenue Corp., 133 S. Ct. 1166, 1175 (2013)).
Accordingly, Mitchell’s appeal is DENIED, and the Magistrate Judge’s decision is
AFFIRMED.
DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of December 2024.
s / Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 Although Rule 41(b) states that a defendant may move to dismiss, the “court may
dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court
order.” Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep't, 205 Fed. Appx. 802 (11th Cir. 2006).
Case 1:24-cv-00304-KD-B Doc# 53 Filed 12/18/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID#
<pageID>