SMITH v. MADISON CO. CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX et al

Filing 41

ENTRY - Dismissing Action and Directing Entry of Final Judgment; The defendants' motion to dismiss, dkt. 34 , is granted. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 6/6/2018. Copy Mailed. (CKM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
DUSTIN SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
CRAIG JACKSON Correctional Officer,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-cv-03915-SEB-DML

Entry Dismissing Action and Directing Entry of Final Judgment
This matter is before the Court on the defendants’ joint motion to dismiss this action
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). For the reasons explained below, the motion is
granted as to all defendants.
The defendants seek dismissal on the basis that Plaintiff Dustin Smith has failed to provide
them with an updated address or otherwise participate in this action since his apparent release from
the Madison County Correctional Complex (MCCC). Counsel for the defendants note that they
have sent their appearances, discovery requests, answers, initial disclosures, and additional
correspondence to Mr. Smith at MCCC. However, these mailings have all been returned by the
Postal Service. See dkts. 34-1, 34-2, 34-3, 34-4. The Postal Service has also returned orders the
Court has attempted to send to Mr. Smith. See dkts. 38, 39. The defendants also represent that they
have not received initial disclosures or any other documents from Mr. Smith since the Court
entered its pretrial schedule on December 20, 2017.
The Court alerted Mr. Smith on three occasions that he must continue to provide the Court
with updated contact information and that failure to do so could result in dismissal. Dkts. 8, 16,

25. MCCC’s address is the only address Mr. Smith has provided to the Court. Mr. Smith has not
filed any documents with the Court since January 8, 2018, and it does not appear that he has
received any mail from the defendants or the Court since at least February 22, 2018 (the earliest
postmark date among the returned documents).
A district court may dismiss an action with prejudice “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or
to comply with these rules or a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Whether dismissal is an
appropriate sanction for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute “depends on all the circumstances of the
case.” Kasalo v. Harris & Harris, Ltd., 656 F.3d 557, 561 (7th Cir. 2011). Dismissal is generally
appropriate only “when there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct, or when other
less drastic sanctions have proven unavailing.” Salata v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 757 F.3d 695, 699
(7th Cir. 2014). “Factors relevant to the decision to dismiss include the plaintiff’s pattern of and
personal responsibility for violating orders, the prejudice to others from that noncompliance, the
possible efficacy of lesser sanctions, and any demonstrated merit to the suit.” Pendell v. City of
Peoria, 799 F.3d 916, 917 (7th Cir. 2015). “With those factors in mind, a court may dismiss a suit
after the plaintiff has willfully refused to comply with discovery orders and the plaintiff has been
warned that noncompliance may lead to dismissal.” Id.
Mr. Smith’s failure to provide the Court or the defendants with his current mailing address
or otherwise participate in this action necessitates the dismissal of this action with prejudice
pursuant to Rule 41(b). Mr. Smith has failed for over five months to participate in this action as
directed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s orders. This has prevented the
defendants from progressing toward resolution of this case. Although dismissal is a harsh
consequence, Mr. Smith’s failure to provide the Court or the defendants with updated contact
information does not permit the Court to remedy the situation with lesser sanctions. And, in any

2

event, Mr. Smith has already been provided with three warnings that his failure to provide current
contact information could result in dismissal.
The defendants’ motion to dismiss, dkt. [34], is granted. Judgment consistent with this
Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

6/6/2018

_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
DUSTIN SMITH
MADISON CO. CORR. COMPLEX
125 Jackson Street
Anderson, IN 46016
Aimee Rivera Cole
TRAVELERS STAFF COUNSEL OFFICE (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]
Mary M. Ruth Feldhake
BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]
Philip R. Zimmerly
BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]

3