Woods v. Mobile Alabama Police Department et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ARTHUR WOODS, 	*
*
Plaintiff, 	*
*
vs. 	* CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-00031-TFM-B
*
MOBILE ALABAMA POLICE 	*
DEPARTMENT, et al., 	*
*
Defendants. 	*
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This 	action 	is 	before 	the 	Court 	on 	review. 	On 	January 	24,
2025, 	Plaintiff 	Arthur 	Woods 	(“Plaintiff”), 	who 	is 	proceeding
without an attorney (pro se), commenced this civil action by filing
a 	complaint 	and 	a 	motion 	to 	proceed 	without 	prepayment 	of 	fees.
(Docs. 	1, 	2). 	This 	action 	was 	referred 	to 	the 	undersigned
Magistrate 	Judge 	for 	consideration 	and 	disposition 	or
recommendation 	on 	all 	pretrial 	matters 	as 	may 	be 	appropriate
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 	(Doc. 3).
In 	his 	complaint, 	Plaintiff 	purported 	to 	sue 	the 	“Mobile
Alabama 	Police 	Department”; 	the 	“United 	States 	of 	America” 	and
“employees, 	officers, 	agents 	[and] 	agency(s) 	of 	the 	United
States”; 	“Officer 	Moez 	Wahid” 	of 	the 	Mobile 	Police 	Department;
“Major Melvin Jones” of the Mobile Police Department; “Head Clerk
Kathy Baptist” of the Mobile Police Department; and Mobile County
Commission “Risk Manager Timothy J. Smith.” 	(Doc. 1 at 1-5).
Case 1:25-cv-00031-TFM-B Doc# 6 Filed 03/07/25 Page 1 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>

2
Plaintiff alleged that he was harassed, physically assaulted,
and 	wrongfully 	arrested 	by 	Defendant 	Wahid 	in 	downtown 	Mobile 	on
December 28, 2024. 	(Id. at 2-3). 	Plaintiff alleged that after he
was 	released 	on 	bond 	from 	Mobile 	County 	Metro 	Jail, 	he 	attempted
to obtain reports about the incident from Mobile Police Department
headquarters, 	where 	Defendants 	Baptist 	and 	Jones 	“kept 	telling”
him 	that 	he 	“was 	locked 	up 	for 	some 	old 	non-existent 	warrants”
even though he “never had any warrants.” 	(Id. at 4-5 (alterations
to spelling)). 	Plaintiff alleged that when he later attempted to
obtain Officer Wahid’s “surety information,” Defendant Smith told
him 	there 	“was 	no 	Mobile 	Police 	Officer 	named 	Moez 	Wahid.” 	(Id.
at 5).
Plaintiff requested the following relief:
3,000,000 	individually 	and 	official 	capacity 	against
Mobile Alabama Police officer Moez Wahid for 5th & 14th
Harassment, 	6th 	& 	8th 	Assault, 	6th 	8th 	Assault 	with
bodily 	injury, 	5th 	6th 	7th 	Kidnapping, 	4th 	Theft 	of
property, 	5th 	6th 	False 	Imprisonment, 	6th 	5th 	14 	False
Accusations, 	1st 	Retaliation, 	5th 	& 	14th 	6th 	7th 	Due
Process
600,000 individually and official capacity against Head
Clerk 	of 	the 	Mobile 	Alabama 	Headquarter 	police
department 	for 	5th 	& 	14th 	Due 	Process, 	8th 	Deliberate
Indifference, 1st Reckless disregard
600,000 individually and official capacity against Field
Operation 	East 	Division 	Major 	Melvin 	Jones 	for 	1st
reckless 	disregard, 	8th 	deliberate 	indifference, 	5th 	&
14th Due Process
600,000 	individually 	and 	official 	capacity 	against
Mobile 	County 	Commission 	Risk 	Manager 	Timothy 	J. 	Smith
for 1st Reckless disregard, 8th Deliberate Indifference,
Case 1:25-cv-00031-TFM-B Doc# 6 Filed 03/07/25 Page 2 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>

3
5th & 14th Due Process
900,000 each punitive damages against all defendants for
conspiracy 	to 	deprive 	me 	of 	my 	human, 	civil, 	and
constitutional rights and cover-up of unlawful acts.
(Id. at 24 (alterations to spelling)).
In 	an 	order 	dated 	February 	4, 	2025, 	the 	Court 	granted
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees
(in 	forma 	pauperis) 	but 	found 	that 	Plaintiff’s 	complaint 	was 	a
deficient 	shotgun 	pleading 	that 	failed 	to 	comply 	with 	federal
pleading 	standards. 	(Doc. 	4). 	The 	Court 	found 	that 	Plaintiff’s
complaint 	was 	deficient 	for 	four 	primary 	reasons. 	(Id. 	at 	6-8).
First, 	the 	Court 	noted 	that 	“the 	‘Mobile 	Alabama 	Police
Department,’ 	the 	‘United 	States 	of 	America,’ 	and 	‘employees,
officers, agents [and] agency(s) of the United States,’ [were] not
proper 	defendants 	in 	this 	matter.” 	(Id. 	at 	6). 	The 	Court
explained that “[t]he ‘Mobile Alabama Police Department’ [was] not
a proper defendant because an Alabama ‘city’s police department is
not 	a 	suable 	entity 	or 	a 	proper 	party 	under 	state 	law 	or 	for 	§
1983 	purposes.’” 	(Id. 	(citation 	omitted)). 	The 	Court 	further
explained 	that 	Plaintiff’s 	“inclusion 	of 	federal 	government
defendants 	[was] 	patently 	frivolous” 	because 	Plaintiff 	was
“complaining 	exclusively 	about 	the 	actions 	of 	local 	government
officials” in his complaint. 	(Id.). 	Second, the Court found that
Plaintiff’s 	complaint 	violated 	Federal 	Rule 	of 	Civil 	Procedure
10(b) 	because 	Plaintiff 	failed 	“to 	state 	his 	allegations 	‘in
Case 1:25-cv-00031-TFM-B Doc# 6 Filed 03/07/25 Page 3 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>

4
numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single
set 	of 	circumstances[,]’” 	and 	he 	also 	failed 	to 	“separate 	[his]
claims 	for 	relief 	or 	causes 	of 	action 	into 	different 	counts 	with
the pertinent facts supporting each claim.” 	(Id. at 6-7). 	Third,
the 	Court 	found 	that 	Plaintiff’s 	complaint 	violated 	“the
prohibition 	against 	shotgun 	pleadings 	because 	it 	[was] 	‘replete
with 	conclusory, 	vague, 	and 	immaterial 	facts 	not 	obviously
connected to any particular cause of action.’” 	(Id. at 7 (citation
omitted)). 	Specifically, 	the 	Court 	noted 	that 	“a 	significant
segment of the complaint [was] devoted to a nonsensical attempted
legal discussion of matters (such as treason and murder) that [had]
absolutely no application to the facts of this case.” 	(Id.). 	The
Court 	further 	observed 	that 	the 	complaint 	repeatedly 	employed
“language bearing hallmarks of the discredited ‘sovereign citizen’
movement.” 	(Id. at 8). 	Fourth, the Court found that Plaintiff’s
complaint 	was 	“guilty 	of 	the 	shotgun 	pleading 	‘sin 	of 	asserting
multiple 	claims 	against 	multiple 	defendants 	without 	specifying
which 	of 	the 	defendants 	are 	responsible 	for 	which 	acts 	or
omissions.’” 	(Id. (citation omitted)). 	In particular, the Court
observed 	that 	Plaintiff 	appeared 	“to 	claim 	that 	‘all 	defendants’
engaged 	in 	a 	‘conspiracy’ 	to 	deprive 	him 	of 	his 	rights 	and 	cover
up 	unlawful 	acts, 	but 	he 	fail[ed] 	to 	specify 	what 	acts 	each
defendant allegedly engaged in to further the claimed conspiracy.”
(Id.).
Case 1:25-cv-00031-TFM-B Doc# 6 Filed 03/07/25 Page 4 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>

5
The 	Court 	found 	that 	the 	foregoing 	pleading 	deficiencies
hindered 	its 	“ability 	to 	screen 	Plaintiff’s 	complaint 	for 	the
purpose 	of 	determining 	whether 	his 	claims 	[were] 	subject 	to 	sua
sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).” 	(Id.). 	Thus,
the Court struck Plaintiff’s complaint as an impermissible shotgun
pleading. 	(Id. at 9). 	The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file
an 	amended 	complaint 	that 	addressed 	the 	deficiencies 	outlined 	in
the 	Court’s 	order 	on 	or 	before 	March 	4, 	2025. 	(Id.). 	The 	Court
cautioned 	Plaintiff 	that 	if 	he 	did 	not 	file 	a 	complying 	amended
complaint on or before the March 4, 2025 deadline, the undersigned
would 	recommend 	that 	this 	action 	be 	dismissed 	for 	failure 	to
prosecute and failure to obey the Court’s order. 	(Id. at 12).1
To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, despite
being ordered to do so no later than March 4, 2025. 	Plaintiff has
not requested additional time to comply with the Court’s order, he
has 	not 	indicated 	that 	he 	is 	unable 	to 	comply 	with 	the 	Court’s
order, and he has provided no explanation for his failure to timely
file an amended complaint. 	Additionally, the docket reflects that
none 	of 	the 	orders 	or 	documents 	sent 	to 	Plaintiff 	in 	this 	case
1 The undersigned directed the Clerk of Court to send Plaintiff a
copy 	of 	his 	original 	complaint 	for 	his 	reference, 	along 	with 	a
copy of this Court’s Pro Se Litigant Handbook. 	(Doc. 4 at 12-13).
The undersigned encouraged Plaintiff to review the Pro Se Litigant
Handbook carefully and utilize it in drafting his amended complaint
so as to avoid repetition of his pleading errors. 	(Id. at 13).
Case 1:25-cv-00031-TFM-B Doc# 6 Filed 03/07/25 Page 5 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>

6
have been returned to the Court as undeliverable.2
A court “may sua sponte dismiss an action pursuant to Federal
Rule 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	41(b) 	if 	the 	plaintiff 	fails 	to 	comply
with court rules or a court order.” 	Smith v. Bruster, 424 F. App’x
912, 	914 	(11th 	Cir. 	2011) 	(per 	curiam) 	(citing 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P.
41(b); 	Betty 	K 	Agencies, 	Ltd. 	v. 	M/V 	Monada, 	432 	F.3d 	1333, 	1337
(11th Cir. 2005)). 	“In addition to its power under Rule 41(b), a
court also has the inherent ability to dismiss a claim in light of
its authority to enforce its orders and provide for the efficient
disposition of litigation.” 	Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479, 483
(11th 	Cir. 	2006) 	(citing 	Link 	v. 	Wabash 	R.R., 	370 	U.S. 	626, 	630–
31 	(1962)). 	To 	dismiss 	an 	action 	with 	prejudice 	for 	failure 	to
prosecute, 	comply 	with 	the 	Federal 	Rules 	of 	Civil 	Procedure, 	or
follow a court order, the court must find “a clear record of delay
or 	willful 	conduct 	and 	that 	lesser 	sanctions 	are 	inadequate 	to
correct such conduct.” 	Betty K Agencies, 432 F.3d at 1339. 	“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.” 	Moon 	v. 	Newsome, 	863
2 Indeed, 	rather 	than 	filing 	a 	complying 	amended 	complaint 	as
directed, 	Plaintiff 	doubled 	down 	on 	the 	nonsensical 	sovereign
citizen language used in his initial complaint. 	Specifically, in
a 	filing 	dated 	March 	3, 	2025, 	Plaintiff 	stated: 	“I 	Arthur 	Woods,
sovereign living man under common law am terminating the Motion to
Proceed Without Payment of Fees pursuant to Title 28 USC § 1915 in
order 	to 	proceed 	in 	forma 	pauperis 	in 	this 	action. 	I 	do 	not
understand, I do not accept, and I do not consent.” 	(Doc. 5).
Case 1:25-cv-00031-TFM-B Doc# 6 Filed 03/07/25 Page 6 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>

7
F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989).
As 	noted 	previously, 	Plaintiff 	has 	made 	no 	apparent 	attempt
to comply with the Court’s order directing him to file an amended
complaint by March 4, 2025, despite the undersigned’s clear warning
that 	his 	failure 	to 	file 	an 	amended 	complaint 	within 	that 	time
would 	result 	in 	a 	recommendation 	that 	this 	action 	be 	dismissed.
Plaintiff’s 	failure 	to 	comply 	with 	this 	Court’s 	order 	to 	file 	an
amended 	complaint 	suggests 	that 	he 	has 	abandoned 	the 	prosecution
of this action. 	In light of Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this
action, 	and 	his 	apparently 	willful 	failure 	to 	obey 	this 	Court’s
order 	by 	timely 	filing 	an 	amended 	complaint 	as 	directed, 	it 	is
recommended that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice, as it
appears 	no 	lesser 	sanction 	will 	suffice 	to 	induce 	his 	compliance
with the Court’s directives.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS
A 	copy 	of 	this 	report 	and 	recommendation 	shall 	be 	served 	on
all parties in the manner provided by law. 	Any party who objects
to 	this 	recommendation 	or 	anything 	in 	it 	must, 	within 	fourteen
(14) 	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	this 	document, 	file 	specific
written objections with the Clerk of this Court. 	See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	72(b); 	S.D. 	Ala. 	GenLR 	72(c). 	The
parties 	should 	note 	that 	under 	Eleventh 	Circuit 	Rule 	3-1, 	“[a]
party 	failing 	to 	object 	to 	a 	magistrate 	judge’s 	findings 	or
recommendations 	contained 	in 	a 	report 	and 	recommendation 	in
Case 1:25-cv-00031-TFM-B Doc# 6 Filed 03/07/25 Page 7 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>

8
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the
right 	to 	challenge 	on 	appeal 	the 	district 	court’s 	order 	based 	on
unobjected-to 	factual 	and 	legal 	conclusions 	if 	the 	party 	was
informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on
appeal 	for 	failing 	to 	object. 	In 	the 	absence 	of 	a 	proper
objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error
if necessary in the interests of justice.” 	11th Cir. R. 3-1.
In 	order 	to 	be 	specific, 	an 	objection 	must 	identify 	the
specific 	finding 	or 	recommendation 	to 	which 	objection 	is 	made,
state 	the 	basis 	for 	the 	objection, 	and 	specify 	the 	place 	in 	the
Magistrate 	Judge’s 	report 	and 	recommendation 	where 	the 	disputed
determination is found. 	An objection that merely incorporates by
reference or refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge is
not specific.
DONE this 7th day of March, 2025.
/s/ SONJA F. BIVINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00031-TFM-B Doc# 6 Filed 03/07/25 Page 8 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>