CEARLEY v. USA

Filing 12

Order of Dismissal directing the Clerk of Court to not accept any complaints or other filings from plaintiff absent a direct order from the Court. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Thomas C. Wheeler. (dls) Copy to parties.

ORECIIiIAt
lJn tW @nite! $ltstes {,ourt of fpDersl @lsfms
No. 14-515C
(Filed: January 12, 2015)

*,!************x***,t

FILED
JAN 1 2

***

t<

+ + ,t :t

,t.

*

,t

!t,

*

**** *

2015

U,S. COURT OF
FEDERAL CLAIMS

JACKIE RAY CEARLEY.
Plaintiff,
*
THE LINITED STATES,
Defendant.

*****{.{.{.,t *'t ***r!*:t +t

{<*,,.**t(r(,t

****:t ***r(rr

DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
The court, by its orvn motion, raises the dismissal of plaintiffs complaint for
f'ailure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). on August 14, 2014, the Government filed a
Motion to Dismiss Plaintilf s complaint, Dkt. No. 10. plaintiff failed to respond to the
motion to dismiss by the court's September ls,2ol4 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. ll. yet, plaintiff continues to remain
unresponsive to the Court's orders.
Rule 41(b) provides that "[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with these
rules or a court order, the court may dismiss on its own motion or the difendant may
move to dismiss the action or any claim against it." Rule 4l (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 to 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 (z0l I ) (citing Kadin corp. v. United States ls2 F .zd n s, na,
77 (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 party 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 srandard "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.2Il,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 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 further adjudication of his case in this Court.

Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute in
accordance with Rule 41(b). Due to the multiplicity of frivolous suits plaintiff filed this
year, the court also directs the clerk of court not to accept any complaints
or other
filings from Plaintiffabsent a direct order from the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

lf,^rrC.PA^
THOMAS C. WHEELER
Judge