Carter v. Piggly Wiggly - Phenix City Alabama LLC

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Piggly Wiggly Phenix City, Alabama, L.L.C.'s ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Comply with the Court's Discovery Order and Failure to Prosecute 20 . As further stated within, Defendant's motion 20 is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Costs taxed to Carter. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 11/20/2018. (PSM)

FILED
2018 Nov-20 AM 09:19
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
DEWAYNE CARTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PIGGLY WIGGLY—PHENIX
CITY, ALABAMA, L.L.C.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

7:17-cv-01356-LSC

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Piggly Wiggly – Phenix City, Alabama,
L.L.C.’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Comply with the
Court’s Discovery Order and Failure to Prosecute (Doc. 20). For the reasons
stated below, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff Dewayne Carter (“Carter”) filed this case on August 11, 2017,
alleging that he was subjected to race discrimination and retaliation by his
employer Piggly Wiggly in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 2000e, et seq.
On June 27, 2018, Defendant filed a motion to compel Carter to respond to
Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production (Doc.
11.) On July 19, 2018, this Court ordered Carter to show cause as to why
the Court should not dismiss this action for Carter’s failure to take part in
discovery. (Doc. 12.) Carter’s attorney responded on July 27, 2018 that he
Page 1 of 4

had been unable to locate his client and requested that the Court give him
additional time to do so. (Doc. 13.) On July 30, 2018, the Court entered an
order granting Carter’s attorney an additional fourteen days to locate his
client and participate in discovery. (Doc. 14.) The Court warned Carter’s
attorney that if he did not do so the Court would dismiss this action for failure
to participate in discovery. (See id.)
On August 11, 2018, Carter’s attorney notified the Court that he had
located his client and that he was incarcerated in the Metro Davidson County
Detention Center in Nashville, Tennessee (Doc. 15.). Carter’s attorney
stated that he was seeking visitation to comply with the Court’s discovery
order. (See id.) On August 22, 2018, the Court ordered Carter to completely
respond to all pending discovery requests with fifteen days from the date of
the Order. (Doc. 16.) The Court again stated that failure to comply with the
Court’s order would result in the dismissal of this action for failure to
participate in discovery. (See id.) On September 19, 2018, Defendant’s
counsel notified the Court that although Carter had responded to some of
the discovery requests that he had not fully responded to Defendant’s
interrogatories and failed to produce responsive documents to Defendant’s
requests for production. (Doc. 18.) On September 27, 2018, the Court
entered an order stating that Carter had ten days to show cause as to why
Page 2 of 4

the Court should not dismiss this action for failure to take part in discovery.
(Doc. 19.) More than ten days have elapsed since the date of that order, and
Carter has failed to respond to the Court’s order or supplement his discovery
responses.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) authorizes the Court to
sanction a party who fails to obey its discovery orders. Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(2)(A). This includes the ability to dismiss “the action or proceeding in
whole or in part.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(2)(A)(v). Moreover, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), “[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). This Court’s inherent power to
manage its docket also provides authority for dismissal of this case with
prejudice. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962) (“The
authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice
because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted. The power
to invoke this sanction is necessary to prevent undue delays in the
disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the
District Courts.”).
Here, the Court concludes that dismissal of this case is proper under
both standards. Carter has failed to comply with the Court’s order to show
Page 3 of 4

cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to fully respond
to Defendant’s discovery request. He was repeatedly warned that his failure
to participate in discovery could lead to dismissal of this case. Moreover,
Carter has yet to fully respond to Defendant’s interrogatories and requests
for production despite the discovery deadline having expired on October 11,
2018. Carter’s failure to keep in touch with his attorney, fully respond to
pending discovery requests after ordered to do so, and comply with the
Court’s orders evidences a clear pattern of delay and lack of interest in
pursuing his claims. Therefore, Defendant’s motion (doc. 20) is GRANTED,
and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Costs taxed to Carter.
DONE and ORDERED on November 20, 2018.

_____________________________
L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
194800

Page 4 of 4