CEARLEY v. USA

Filing 16

Order of Dismissal. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Thomas C. Wheeler. (dls) Copy to parties.

ORIGI${AI
IJn tW

@nfte[ sltutts {.ourt of felerul @tuims
No. l4-3817

FILED

(Filed: January 12, 2015)
:1.

*<:+

***

**********

:*

***

,*

+**+

+:t

******+** *
*

JACKIE RAY CEARLEY,

JAN

l

2

2015

U.S. COURT OF
FEDERAL CIAIMS

Plaintiff,

THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
*t(,F***,t **** *,r*t(,t ,t **** *** {' *,f *{.***** ** *

DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
The Court, by its own motion, raises the dismissal of Plaintiffs complaint for
failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). On September 5, 2014, the Government filed a
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff s Complaint, Dkt. No. 14. Plaintiff failed to respond to the
Government's motion by the Court's October 6,2014 deadline. Thus, on December 4,
2014, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to respond to the Government's motion
to dismiss by January 5, 2015, Dkt. No. 15. Yet, Plaintiff continues to remain
unresponsive to the Court's orders.
Rule 41(b) provides that "[i]f the plaintiff lails to prosecute or comply with rhese
rules or a court order, the court may dismiss on its own motion or the defendant may
move to dismiss the action or any claim against it." Rule 41(b) is a necessary tool to
ensure efficient docket management and prevent undue delays in litigation. Link v,
Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626,629-30 (1962). "While dismissal of a claim is a harsh
action, especially Io a pro se litigant, it is justified when a party fails to pursue litigation
diligently and disregards the court's rules and show cause order." Whiting v. United
States, 99 Fed. Cl. 13, 17 (2011) (citing Kadin Com. v. United States , 782 F .2d 17 5, 17677 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Here, Plaintiff failed to respond to the Govemment's motion to
dismiss and to the court's show cause order. Dismissal is therefore not only appropriate,
but required to maintain efficient usage of the Court's resources.

The Court is mindful of Plaintiff s pro se status and has carefully considered the
possibility that Plaintiff may not be familiar with the Court's rules and procedures.
Although pro se litigants are generally afforded some leniency in procedural matters, this
less stringent standard does not permit a parly to disregard the timetables set by court
rules or the show cause order issued by the Court. See Carpenter v. United States, 38
Fed. Cl. 576, 578 (1997) (noting that the less stringent standard "does not allow a
plaintiff to wholly disregard the timetable set by the court's rules, messages left by the
court, or a show cause order"); see also Brown v. United States,22 Cl. Ct.2ll,213
(1990) ("[t]he court is sensitive to the special hardships of pro se plaintiffs, however,
"latitude" does not equal "free rein" and there comes a point where the court must say
enough is enough"). The Court's December 4,2014 show cause order explicitly wamed
Plaintiff that failure to respond to the order would result in the case being dismissed.
Despite being given every opportunity to proceed with his case, Plaintiff has failed to
take the required steps necessary for f'urther adjudication of his case in this Court.

Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute in
accordance with Rule 4l(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

fl,-*c

nL

THOMAS C. WHEELER
Judge