Case: Binion v. Mcgriff

This case is about a plaintiff that ran for Chilton County Commissioner and alleged that “all” votes cast by African American voters in Chilton County were “knocked out” due to “machine malfunctions, voter fraud, [and] tampering with votes, [and] marking ballots.”

On December 2, 2016, the plaintiff filed two complaints in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama against the members of the Canvassing Board whom the plaintiff petitioned for a recount of votes cast for the County Commissioner position he was running for on November 8, 2016. The plaintiff did not state any legal claims in his complaints as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, the plaintiff merely asserted factual allegations. Representing himself pro se, the plaintiff sought monetary and injunctive relief against the defendants.  

On December 2, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On December 6, 2016, U.S. District Judge Thompson refers the case to the United States Magistrate Judge for consideration and disposition or recommendation on all pretrial matters.

On August 9, 2017, the court issued an order that reviewed the plaintiff’s complaint and highlighted the fact that the plaintiff made many factual allegations but had not pled his claims effectively. The order stated that the plaintiff would be afforded an opportunity to file an amended complaint that established the court’s subject matter jurisdiction and sets out allegations of fact and legal claims consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, then this could result in the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the matter be dismissed. In summary, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, denied the plaintiff’s motion for a hearing, and directed the Clerk of Court to hold service of process until the plaintiff filed his amended complaint.

On October 5, 2017, the court issued a recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The order detailed that the plaintiff had not taken any action in the case since he filed a motion for hearing back in January 2017 and failed to file an amended complaint that established the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Because the plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the deadline and because of lack of prosecution and failure to obey a court order, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the plaintiff’s cause be dismissed without prejudice.

On November 28, 2017, the court issued an opinion to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the plaintiff’s case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, failure to prosecute. On November 28, 2017, the court issued a judgment that confirmed the lawsuit’s dismissal.

This case is now closed.