Beasley v. A.F.L.-A.G.C. Building Trades Pension Plan

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION WILLIAM BEASLEY, JR., )

) Plaintiff, )

) ) )

vs. CIVIL NO. 1:21-cv-227-CG-MU

) )

A.F.L.-A.G.C. BUILDING TRADES

) WELFARE AND PENSION PLANS,

) )

Defendants.

ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff William Beasley, Jr’s failure to respond to the Court’s September 16, 2021 Order to Show Cause (Doc. 20). The Order to Show Cause was prompted by Defendant A.F.L.-A.G.C. Building Trades Pension Plan’s Motion to Clarify and Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s unacknowledged “affidavit” (Doc. 18). Plaintiff was ordered to show cause, no later than September 30, 2021, why the “affidavit” should not be stricken. (Doc. 20). Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s Show Cause Order.

Plaintiff is proceeding as a pro se litigant, and as such, the Court construes his filings liberally and holds his pleadings to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See, e.g, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). However, once 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.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989); Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007).

To date, Plaintiff has not requested an extension of time to respond to the Show Cause Order nor has he demonstrated any reason that would prevent him from timely responding.1 Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Affidavit to Support Cause (Doc. 17) is hereby stricken in full.

DONE and ORDERED this 18th day, of October 2021.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 Notably, Plaintiff timely responded (Doc. 16) to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) without issue.