Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-40187-RGS.
November 16, 2010
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On September 28, 2010, this court issued a Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 2) directing plaintiff Sayyid Muhammad Abdullah, a/k/a Anthony Conley (hereinafter "Abdullah"), to pay the $350.00 filing fee or file a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis along with a certified prison account statement. Abdullah was also directed to demonstrate good cause why this action should not be dismissed in its entirety because: (1) he failed to state plausible claims upon which relief may be granted in accordance with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) absolute judicial immunity barred claims against the state court judge; and (3) the favorable termination rule barred his claims against counsel for the Massachusetts Department of Developmental Services.
On October 13, 2010, the mail sent to Abdullah was returned to this court as undeliverable, with the notation that the mail was "refused" by Abdullah. To date, Abdullah has failed to comply with any of the directives contained in the Memorandum and Order with respect to the filing fee or demonstrating good cause why this action should not be dismissed on the merits, and the time period for doing so has expired. Abdullah has, however, submitted a number of pleadings and motions in connection with another civil action filed on October 8, 2010, Abdullah v. Ruiz, Civil Action No. 10-40204-FDS. In light of this, the court presumes that Abdullah may have abandoned the instant litigation in order to concentrate his efforts elsewhere.
In any event, Abdullah has failed to comply with the directives of the Memorandum and Order. His refusal to accept mail from the court containing that Memorandum and Order does not alter this court's view that this action must be dismissed for noncompliance, as well as for the substantive reasons setting forth the legal impediments to his claims.
Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered that the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED in its entirety.
This dismissal is intended as a dismissal on the merits for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. As such, the dismissal may count as a "strike" under the three-strikes rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
SO ORDERED.