WILHELM-TODD et al v. KNIGHT et al

Filing 53

ORDER granting 48 Motion for Sanctions (Dismissal). The existence of such circumstances here consists of the plaintiffs unexplained failure to comply with directions in the Entry of September 30, 2011. Therefore, defendant Knight's unopposed motion to dismiss 48 is GRANTED. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. *** SEE ENTRY ***. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 1/10/2012. (CKM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

LORI WILHELM-TODD,
MICHELLE WILHELM-ACE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
S. KNIGHT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:10-cv-1184-SEB-TAB

Entry and Order Dismissing Action
As the result of prior proceedings, claims asserted pursuant to the Fifth
Amendment have been dismissed, claims asserted against the City of Indianapolis
have been dismissed, the individual capacity claim against Chief Paul Ciesielski has
been dismissed, official capacity claims against Officer Stephen Knight and Chief
Paul Ciesielski have been dismissed, and state tort claims against Officer Stephen
Knight have been dismissed. Federal claims against Officer Knight in his individual
capacity remained.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contain provisions for the imposition of
sanctionsBeven extreme sanctions such as the dismissal of a complaintBagainst
parties who fail to adhere to the discovery provisions of those Rules or who fail to
obey court orders issued in the course of the pretrial development of a lawsuit. See
Maynard v. Nygren, 332 F.3d 462, 467 (7th Cir. 2003); Newman v. Metropolitan Pier
& Exposition Authority, 962 F.2d 589 (7th Cir. 1992); In re State Exchange Finance
Co., 896 F.2d 1104 (7th Cir. 1990).
A case may be dismissed under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for failure to follow an order of the court. See Maynard v. Nygren, 332 F.3d
462, 467 (7th Cir. 2003). AThis authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court's
inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of
pending cases.@ Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir.
1985)(citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U .S. 626, 629 (1962)).
In addition, Rule 37(b)(2)(c) provides that a court may impose sanctions on a
party for failure to cooperate in discovery. Such sanctions include dismissal of the
action.

The dismissal of an action under circumstances contemplated by the foregoing
principles is an available, though drastic, measure. The sanction of dismissal is for
cases where the offending party displays willfulness, bad faith, or fault in
disregarding the district court's orders. Long v. Steepro, 213 F.3d 983, 986 & n.3 (7th
Cir. 2000). Those circumstances are present here. See Collins v. Illinois, 554 F.3d 693
(7th Cir. 2009) (upholding dismissal as sanction for failure to appear for a
deposition). The existence of such circumstances here consists of the plaintiff’s
unexplained failure to comply with directions in the Entry of September 30, 2011.
This relates to compliance with obligations to respond to discovery and to make
appropriate filings pursuant to the case management plan. The plaintiffs, in short,
have abandoned the remaining claim in the case and have ignored and violated the
court’s orders.
Based on the above circumstances, therefore, defendant Knight’s unopposed
motion to dismiss [48] is granted.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

01/10/2012
Date: ____________________
_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana