Leblanc v. MIS Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ALLISON-KATHLEEN LeBLANC, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Civil Action No. 24-00209-KD-MU
)
MIS, INC., REGIONS BANK, FREDDIE 	)
MAC, MO’S TOWING LLC, DEPUTY 	)
SHERIFF CLARENCE HERRING, and 	)
BALDWIN COUNTY SHERIFF HUEY 	)
HOSS MACK, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
This action is before the Court on the Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff
Allison Kathleen LeBlanc (doc. 60), the motion to strike the Second Amended Complaint filed
by Defendants Deputy Sheriff Clarence Herring and Sheriff Huey Hoss Mack (doc. 62),
LeBlanc’s response (doc. 63) and Defendants’ reply (doc. 64).
Upon consideration, and for the reasons set forth herein, the motion to strike is
GRANTED in part. The Second Amended Complaint (doc. 60) is stricken for failure to comply
with the Court’s order. However, the Court declines to dismiss this action. LeBlanc is granted
leave to file on or before April 4, 2025, a Second Amended Complaint against Herring, Mack,
and MIS, Inc., only, which complies with the Court’s order and corrects the pleading
deficiencies identified in the Report and Recommendation.
A. Failure to comply with the Court’s order
Previously, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of LeBlanc’s First Amended
Complaint with leave to file a Second Amended Complaint that would cure certain pleading
deficiencies. The First Amended Complaint was an impermissible shot-gun complaint which
contained three of the four impermissible shotgun pleading categories (doc. 56, p. 12-15, doc.
Case 1:24-cv-00209-KD-MU Doc# 66 Filed 03/27/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID#
<pageID>

2
57). The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and gave LeBlanc leave to file a
Second Amended Complaint against Mack, Herring, and MIS, Inc. (doc. 58).
Instead of complying with the Court’s order, LeBlanc filed a Second Amended
Complaint that added multiple claims, nine named defendants, and John Doe 1-10. LeBlanc
substantially exceeded the scope of permissible amendments to her First Amended Complaint.
Accordingly, the motion to strike is granted and LeBlanc’s Second Amended Complaint is
stricken for failure to comply with the Court’s order. However, the action will not be dismissed
at this time. LeBlanc is given another opportunity to comply with the Court’s order.
LeBlanc is warned that if she fails to file a Second Amended Complaint against Herring,
Mack, and MIS, Inc., only, then this action will be dismissed for failure to abide by the Court’s
orders. Kelly v. Montgomery Housing Authority, 2025 WL 221796 (M.D. Ala. 2025) (“Where a
plaintiff fails to comply with an order to file an amended complaint to cure shotgun pleading
issues, the case may be dismissed with or without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the court's inherent powers to ensure compliance with its orders.”);
Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc. v. Fla. Mowing and Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1241
(11th Cir. 2009) (“A district court has inherent authority to manage its own docket ‘so as to
achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’ Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S.
32, 43, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 2132, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991). The court may dismiss a claim if the
plaintiff fails to prosecute it or comply with a court order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). ‘The power to
invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending
cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Court.’ Durham v. Fla. East Coast
Ry. Co., 385 F.2d 366, 367 (5th Cir.1967)) (footnote omitted); Heard v. Nix, 170 F. App'x 618,
619 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Although pro se complaints must be liberally construed …such
complaints still must comply with the procedural rules governing the proper form of
pleadings[.]) (internal citations omitted).
B. Late filing
Case 1:24-cv-00209-KD-MU Doc# 66 Filed 03/27/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID#
<pageID>

3
Herring and Mack argue that LeBlanc’s Second Amended Complaint should be stricken
as untimely because it was filed on March 21, 2025, at 0:19 a.m. They argue that LeBlanc again
failed to follow the Court’s order and file on March 20, 2025, and that LeBlanc assumed the risk
of waiting until the “last second” to file her pleading. Herring and Mack also argue that
LeBlanc’s pleading should be stricken because she failed to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure.
They point out that LeBlanc did not move the Court for an extension of time before the deadline
and did not move for permission to file late after the deadline.
In response to the motion to strike, LeBlanc explains that she is a night nurse and planned
to file the pleading during her lunch break. She states that she “was delayed during the process
because [she] did not know [she] would have to enter each of the additional defendants and [she]
did not know the process of submitting them in the computer” (doc. 63).
LeBlanc further explains that
The Plaintiff made good faith efforts to comply with the court's scheduling order.
I called the court earlier in the day when I realized my complaint would not be
completed by the time the court closed. I verified that I could complete my filing
online and come in to court the next day to send summons to the defendants. I did
not want to draw out this case further by requesting an extension of time to
amend, feeling reasonably sure at that time that I would be able to complete the
filing by midnight.
(Doc. 63).
Rule 6(b) applies to extensions of time. The Rule sets forth as follows:
(b) Extending Time.
(1) In General. When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the
court may, for good cause, extend the time:
(A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made,
before the original time or its extension expires; or
(B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of
excusable neglect.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).
Case 1:24-cv-00209-KD-MU Doc# 66 Filed 03/27/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID#
<pageID>

4
The Court may extend the time for good cause and accept the untimely pleading if
LeBlanc has shown excusable neglect. To do so, the Court may consider multiple factors,
“including the danger of prejudice to the opposing party, the length of the delay and its impact on
judicial proceedings, and the reason for the delay including whether it was within the reasonable
control of the movant and whether the movant acted in good faith.” Cole v. 3 Circle Church, Inc.,
No. 1:22-CV-99-TFM-N, 2024 WL 775494, at *5 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 26, 2024) (citing Pioneer Inv.
Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S.Ct. 1489 (1993)).
The Court finds that LeBlanc has shown excusable neglect for the late filing. A delay of
19 minutes past midnight does not impact the judicial proceedings or prejudice Mack and
Herring. Arguably, the reason for the delay – the time required to enter the new defendants –
was in LeBlanc’s control because she could have started the process earlier in the day. However,
LeBlanc has shown that she acted in a good faith attempt to timely file her pleading.
LeBlanc admitted that she did not file a motion for leave to extend because she “did not
want to draw out this case further by requesting an extension of time to amend” and because she
believed she could complete the filing before the deadline. LeBlanc is reminded that
proceeding pro se does not excuse her from following the same rules that counsel must
follow. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (“[O]nce a pro se 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”); S.D. Ala. GenLR 83.5(a) (“[a]ll persons proceeding pro se shall be bound by, and must
comply with, all Local Rules of this Court,” as well as the applicable federal rules of procedure,
“unless excused by Court order.”).
C. Amending the pleadings
In her response, LeBlanc writes:
5. Legal Standards
Case 1:24-cv-00209-KD-MU Doc# 66 Filed 03/27/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID#
<pageID>

5
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), amendments should be freely given when
justice so requires. The opposing party is not substantially harmed by the several minute
delay.
(Doc. 63, p. 2)
The Court declines to construe this reference to Rule 15(a), as a motion for leave to
amend the pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); S. D. Ala. Civ. LR 15.
DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of March 2025.
s / Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-00209-KD-MU Doc# 66 Filed 03/27/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID#
<pageID>