Davis v. Whitney

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ISAAC DAVIS, 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-00360-KD-N
)
DAVID WHITNEY, 	)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
The 	Plaintiff, 	Isaac 	Davis—who 	is 	proceeding 	without 	counsel 	(pro
se)—commenced this civil action by filing a complaint with the Circuit Court of
Mobile County, Alabama on August 22, 2024. See (Doc. 1-1, PageID.7-16); Ala. R.
Civ. P. 3. On September 27, 2024, the Defendant, David Whitney, removed the
action to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), on the basis of federal-question
subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (See Doc. 1). On this date,
October 4, 2024, Whitney filed and served a motion to dismiss the complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted, and alternatively a motion for a more definite statement under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) (Doc. 3).1 The assigned District Judge has
referred said motion to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for appropriate action
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(b), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and S.D. Ala.
GenLR 72(a). See S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(b); (10/4/2024 electronic reference notation).
1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(1) (“The[ Federal R]ules [of Civil Procedure] apply to a civil
action after it is removed from a state court.”).
Case 1:24-cv-00360-KD-N Doc# 4 Filed 10/04/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID#
<pageID>

Upon due consideration, the following briefing schedule is set for the subject
motion (Doc. 3):
1. 	Davis must file and serve his brief in response to said motion, if any, no later
than OCTOBER 28, 2024. The undersigned notes that this is also the
deadline by which Davis may amend his complaint once as a matter of course
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), without needing leave of the
court or the opposing party’s consent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) (“A party
may amend its pleading once as a matter of course no later than: … if the
pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after
service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under
Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (“When a
party may or must act within a specified time after being served and service is
made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C) (mail), … 3 days are added after the period would
otherwise 	expire 	under 	Rule 	6(a).”); 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	15(a)(1) 	advisory
committee’s note to 2009 amendment (stating that the current version of Rule
15(a)(1) was enacted to “force the pleader to consider carefully and promptly
the wisdom of amending to meet the arguments in [a Rule 12(b), (e), or (f)]
motion[, as a] responsive amendment may avoid the need to decide the motion
or reduce the number of issues to be decided, and will expedite determination
of issues that otherwise might be raised seriatim”). If Davis chooses to timely
amend his complaint under Rule 15(a)(1)(B), he need not file a separate
response to the motion. See Pintando v. Miami-Dade Hous. Agency, 501 F.3d
Case 1:24-cv-00360-KD-N Doc# 4 Filed 10/04/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID#
<pageID>

1241, 1243 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (“As a general matter, ‘[a]n amended
pleading supersedes the former pleading; the original pleading is abandoned
by the amendment, and is no longer a part of the pleader's averments against
his adversary.’” (quoting Dresdner Bank AG, Dresdner Bank AG in Hamburg
v. M/V OLYMPIA VOYAGER, 463 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation
and quotation omitted))); Fritz v. Standard Sec. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 676 F.2d
1356, 1358 (11th Cir. 1982) (“Under the Federal Rules, an amended complaint
supersedes the original complaint.”).
2. 	Whitney must file and serve his brief in reply to Davis’s response, if any, no
later than NOVEMBER 7, 2024, after which the motion will be taken under
submission for consideration as to the appropriate disposition.
3. 	Except as permitted by the Court’s Local Rules, e.g., S.D. Ala. CivLR 7(f)(3),
no other briefing or submissions addressing the subject motion may be filed
without leave of the Court for good cause shown.
4. 	Should the Court determine that oral argument would be beneficial, a hearing
will be set by separate order. Otherwise, this motion is being submitted
without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); S.D. Ala. CivLR 7(h). “Oral
argument requests must contain specific reasons why oral argument would be
helpful.” S.D. Ala. CivLR 7(h).
All briefing must comply with the requirements of S.D. Ala. General Local
Rule 5(a) and Civil Local Rule 7. However, courtesy copies of any brief or exhibits are
not required unless expressly requested by the Court.
Case 1:24-cv-00360-KD-N Doc# 4 Filed 10/04/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID#
<pageID>

NOTICE TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF
Documents filed by pro se parties must be “liberally construed.” Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam). “Yet
even in the case of pro se litigants this leniency does not give a court license to serve
as de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order
to sustain an action.” Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168–69 (11th
Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted). The Plaintiff is advised that “[a]ll persons proceeding
pro se shall be bound by, and must comply with, all Local Rules of this Court, as well
as the Federal Rules of Civil … Procedure, unless excused by Court order.” S.D. Ala.
GenLR 83.5(a). See also Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989)
(“[O]nce a pro se IFP litigant is in court, he is subject to the relevant law and rules of
court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These rules provide for
sanctions for misconduct and for failure to comply with court orders.”); United States
v. Hung Thien Ly, 646 F.3d 1307, 1315 (11th Cir. 2011) (“A pro se [party] must follow
the rules of procedure and evidence and the district court has no duty to act as his
lawyer…” (citation omitted)); Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007)
(per curiam) (“[A]lthough we are to give liberal construction to the pleadings of pro se
litigants, we nevertheless have required them to conform to procedural rules.”
(quotation omitted)).
For instance, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) requires that any paper
filed with the Court be signed by a pro se party personally and provide that party’s
“address, e-mail address, and telephone number.” See also S.D. Ala. GenLR 5(a)(4)
Case 1:24-cv-00360-KD-N Doc# 4 Filed 10/04/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID#
<pageID>

(“For filings by pro se litigants, the unrepresented party shall personally sign each
document filed and shall include, directly beneath the signature line, his or her
name, address and telephone number.”). Unless and until the Plaintiff registers with
the Clerk of Court to electronically file with the Court, see Administrative Procedure
for Electronic Filing in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Alabama, 	§ 	III(B) 	(last 	revised 	2/1/2019)
(https://www.alsd.uscourts.gov/sites/alsd/files/AdminPro.pdf); Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(3),
the Plaintiff must handwrite his or her signature in order to satisfy Rule 11(a).2 “The
court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after
being called to the attorney's or party's attention.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Repeated
failures to follow this or any other court rule or order may result in additional
sanctions, up to and including dismissal of this action. See Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v.
M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that a court may
dismiss an action on its own motion as a sanction for failure to obey rules and orders,
under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the court’s inherent authority);
Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (“While dismissal is an
extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the
2 See Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 763–64, 121 S. Ct. 1801, 149 L. Ed. 2d 983
(2001) 	(“Becker 	maintains 	that 	typing 	one's 	name 	satisfies 	the 	signature
requirement and that his original notice of appeal, containing his name typed above
“(Counsel of Record),” met Civil Rule 11(a)’s instruction…[H]owever, we are not
disposed to extend the meaning of the word ‘signed,’ as that word appears in Civil
Rule 11(a), to permit typed names. As Rule 11(a) is now framed, we read the
requirement of a signature to indicate, as a signature requirement commonly does,
and as it did in John Hancock's day, a name handwritten (or a mark handplaced).”).
Case 1:24-cv-00360-KD-N Doc# 4 Filed 10/04/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID#
<pageID>

litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.”).
Under this Court’s local rules, “[a]ny person proceeding pro se must, at all
times during the pendency of the action to which he or she is a party, keep the Clerk
informed of his or her current address and … must promptly notify the Clerk of any
change of address … Failure to comply with this Rule may result in sanction,
including 	dismissal 	of 	a 	pro 	se 	plaintiff’s 	action…” 	S.D. 	Ala. 	GenLR 	83.5(b).
Additionally, any “request for Court action must be presented by motion and may
not be presented by informal means such as a letter.” S.D. Ala. GenLR 7.3
The Plaintiff is encouraged to review the Court’s informational resources for
pro 	se 	litigants, 	available 	electronically 	on 	the 	Court’s 	website 	at:
https://www.alsd.uscourts.gov/filing-without-attorney.
DONE and ORDERED this the 4th day of October 2024.
/s/ Katherine P. Nelson
KATHERINE P. NELSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3 The 	Court’s 	Local 	Rules 	and 	standing 	orders 	can 	be 	accessed 	at:
https://www.alsd.uscourts.gov/court-info/local-rules-and-orders
Case 1:24-cv-00360-KD-N Doc# 4 Filed 10/04/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID#
<pageID>