United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Ocala Division
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
J. DAVI, S UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Anthony Ravon Ruffin, a federal inmate proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis, initiated this case by filing a complaint
under Bivens (Doc. 1). Finding the complaint deficient,
the Court directed Plaintiff to amend. See Order (Doc. 16;
Order to Amend). In the Order, the Court informed Plaintiff
he may not join multiple, unrelated claims in one complaint.
See Order to Amend at 2-3. Even though Plaintiff suggested
his numerous claims were related, the Court found he in fact
“describe[d] separate and wholly unrelated events that
occurred at three (3) different prisons over the course of a
few years.” Id. at 3. The Court afforded
Plaintiff an opportunity to amend, instructing him to limit
his claims to those pertaining to the same transaction,
occurrence, or factually related series of transactions or
occurrences, which transpired at FCC Coleman. Id. at
4. The Court warned Plaintiff that “if he files an
amended pleading that suffers from the same defects as his
previous complaint such pleading will be stricken, and the
Court will dismiss this case without further notice.”
the Court is Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 19; Am.
Compl.), along with a “Memorandum of Fact and
Law” in which he provides the Defendants' names,
his factual allegations, and his claims (Doc. 19-1; Mem.). As
Defendants, Plaintiff names nine individuals employed at FCC
Coleman, one of whom Plaintiff says he names as a
representative of the “female gender class, ”
which consists of “523 past and present female staff of
F.C.C. Coleman.” See Mem. at 4. Plaintiff asserts
claims under the First, Fifth and Eighth Amendments.
Id. at 23-25. He seeks injunctive relief and
punitive damages. Id. at 28-31.
has multiple motions pending before the Court as well (Docs.
7, 8, 22-34). In his motions, Plaintiff makes the following
requests: that the Court appoint him counsel (Doc. 7); that
he be permitted to serve copies of the notice of designation
(Doc. 8); that the Court consider by reference documents he
filed with his original complaint (Docs. 23, 25, 27); that he
be permitted to obtain documents in the possession of FCC
Coleman (Docs. 21, 26, 30); that he be permitted to
supplement or clarify his claims (Docs. 28, 29, 33); that he
be permitted to clarify his gender and submit briefing on the
disparity between transgender and cisgender inmates (Docs.
31, 32); and that he be permitted to correct clerical errors
(Docs. 33, 34).
review, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is subject to
dismissal for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the
Court's Order to Amend and because he fails to state a
claim. As such, the Court will not rule on Plaintiff's
Failure to Comply
district court has discretion, under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 41(b), to dismiss a pro se plaintiff's
action for his failure to comply with court rules or a court
order. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th
Cir. 1989) (“[D]ismissal upon disregard of an order,
especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally
is not an abuse of discretion.”).
Rule 41(b) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to
prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a
defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against
it.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Rule 41(b) provides the
district court “discretion to impose sanctions on a
party who fails to adhere to court rules.”
Zocaras,  465 F.3d at 483. A district court may sua
sponte dismiss a case under Rule 41(b). Betty K Agencies,
Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir.2005).
Powell v. Harris, 628 Fed.Appx. 679, 680 (11th Cir.
2015) (holding the district court did not abuse its
discretion dismissing the case without prejudice for the
plaintiff's noncompliance with the court's
instructions to file a proper complaint). See also Duong
Thanh Ho v. Costello, 757 Fed.Appx. 912, 914-15 (11th
Cir. 2018) (affirming the district court's dismissal
without prejudice for the pro se plaintiff's failure to
comply with the court's order to amend).
the Court's instructions and warning, Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint suffers from the same deficiencies as the
original. Plaintiff again raises multiple, unrelated claims.
Plaintiff alleges the following: Defendant Rawls filed a
fictitious disciplinary report against him in retaliation for
his grievance-writing; Defendant Taylor failed to process his
grievance appeal; Defendant White violated his due process
rights with respect to a disciplinary hearing; Defendant
Kleckner failed to perform her duties as a case management
coordinator; Defendant Dunbar failed to safeguard Plaintiff
from gender discrimination; Defendant Cheatham failed to
resolve communication barriers; Defendant Goodman harassed
Plaintiff and impeded his access to the grievance process;
Defendant Wimms retaliated against him and confiscated a
letter to his mother; and Defendant Padgett, along with other
female staff, “arouse[d] [his] inherent propensity to
procreate.” See Mem. at 17, 23-25.
attempts to demonstrate his claims are bound by a common
thread of gender discrimination, which began when Defendant
Rawls wrote a disciplinary report against him. However, as
before, the Court is not convinced the claims are
sufficiently related to be joined in one action.
Plaintiff's various claims do not arise out of the
“same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a). For
instance, the alleged fictitious disciplinary report by Rawls
occurred in 2016. See Order to Amend at 2. Most of the other
incidents of which Plaintiff complains occurred in 2018, when
Plaintiff returned to FCC Coleman after two transfers. See
Mem. at 6-7, 9.
also includes factual allegations against individuals at FCC
Allenwood, despite the Court's admonition that, in his
original Complaint, he improperly joined “defendants
located at multiple prisons.” See Order to Amend at
3-4. Finally, Plaintiff asks the Court to consider by
reference the allegations in the memorandum supporting his
original complaint, demonstrating an unwillingness to correct
the deficiencies the Court warned him would result in a
dismissal of the action. See Id. at 4.
these reasons, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is subject
to dismissal without prejudice to his right to initiate a new
case if he wishes to pursue any of his numerous claims. See
Smith v. Owens, 625 Fed.Appx. 924, 928-29 (11th Cir.
2015) (affirming the district court's dismissal of the
plaintiff's complaint against ten corrections officers
for unrelated excessive-force incidents for the
plaintiff's noncompliance with Rule 20). If Plaintiff
chooses to re-file his claims, he should keep in mind the