Darryl Hudson and Lorenzo Hudson v. City of Mobile, ALA. and Judge Don Davis

S.D. Alabama

Darryl Hudson and Lorenzo Hudson v. City of Mobile, ALA. and Judge Don Davis

DecidedJanuary 6, 2026

Docket1:25-cv-00152

StatusUnknown

This text of Darryl Hudson and Lorenzo Hudson v. City of Mobile, ALA. and Judge Don Davis (Darryl Hudson and Lorenzo Hudson v. City of Mobile, ALA. and Judge Don Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Darryl Hudson and Lorenzo Hudson v. City of Mobile, ALA. and Judge Don Davis, (S.D. Ala. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

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

DARRYL HUDSON and ) LORENZO HUDSON, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) Civil Action No. 25-00152-KD-MU ) CITY OF MOBILE, ALA. and ) JUDGE DON DAVIS, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Previously, Plaintiffs Darryl Hudson and Lorenzo Hudson were ordered to show cause on or before October 13 2025 why the Court should not drop the City of Mobile as a defendant in this action (doc. 12). To date, the Hudsons have not responded to the Order and the copy of the Order mailed to the Hudsons has not been returned. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to dismiss the City of Mobile as a defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 (“On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.”); Daker v. Head, 730 Fed. Appx. 765, 768 (11th Cir. 2018) (recognizing a district court's “authority under Rule 21 [to] sua sponte ... dismiss improper defendants”); Glen v. Galardi S. Enterprises, Inc., 2015 WL 1308258, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 23, 2015) (“The Eleventh Circuit has held that ‘[d]ropping or adding a party to a lawsuit pursuant to Rule 21 is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’”) (citation omitted). DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of January 2026. s / Kristi K. DuBose KRISTI K. DuBOSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

DARRYL HUDSON and ) LORENZO HUDSON, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) Civil Action No. 25-00152-KD-MU ) CITY OF MOBILE, ALA. and ) JUDGE DON DAVIS, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Previously, Plaintiffs Darryl Hudson and Lorenzo Hudson were ordered to show cause on or before October 13 2025 why the Court should not drop the City of Mobile as a defendant in this action (doc. 12). To date, the Hudsons have not responded to the Order and the copy of the Order mailed to the Hudsons has not been returned. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to dismiss the City of Mobile as a defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 (“On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.”); Daker v. Head, 730 Fed. Appx. 765, 768 (11th Cir. 2018) (recognizing a district court's “authority under Rule 21 [to] sua sponte ... dismiss improper defendants”); Glen v. Galardi S. Enterprises, Inc., 2015 WL 1308258, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 23, 2015) (“The Eleventh Circuit has held that ‘[d]ropping or adding a party to a lawsuit pursuant to Rule 21 is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’”) (citation omitted). DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of January 2026. s / Kristi K. DuBose KRISTI K. DuBOSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Darryl Hudson and Lorenzo Hudson v. City of Mobile, ALA. and Judge Don Davis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darryl-hudson-and-lorenzo-hudson-v-city-of-mobile-ala-and-judge-don-alsd-2026.