McDowell v. Hording et al
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Greg N. Stivers on 4/3/2017; Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Orders shows a failure to pursue his case. Accordingly, by separate Order, the Court will DISMISS the instant action and will DENY Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (DN 19 ) AS MOOT. cc: Dustin Ray McDowell, pro se; Counsel (CDR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
BOWLING GREEN DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-00104-GNS
DUSTIN RAY MCDOWELL
PLAINTIFF
v.
OFFICER WAYNE HORDING;
CAPTAIN BENNY KENNY;
CAPTAIN KAIN; and
PHIL GREGORY
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Dustin Ray McDowell (“McDowell”) filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and proceeded in forma pauperis. At the time of filing the Complaint, McDowell was a
prisoner at the Logan County Detention Center but has since been released.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court conducted an initial review of the
Complaint.
On May 13, 2016, the Court entered a Memorandum and Scheduling Order
dismissing certain claims asserted by McDowell but granting him leave to amend the Complaint
to assert claims related to retaliation and sexual against the remaining Defendants in their
individual capacities. (Mem. Op. & Order 6, DN 12). Subsequently, on July 22, 2016, the Court
dismissed McDowell’s claims of retaliation and alleged sexual abuse by Defendant Wayne
Hording. (Order 1, DN 14).
On October 19, 2016, Defendants moved to compel discovery from Plaintiff. (Defs.’
Mot. Compel, DN 17).
When McDowell failed to respond to the motion or provide the
requested discovery, the Court granted the motion and directed McDowell to provide the
requested discovery within 21 days of December 22, 2016. (Order, DN 18).
Despite the Court directing McDowell to respond to the outstanding discovery requests,
Plaintiff still did not comply. On January 18, 2017, Defendants moved to dismiss the case due to
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s prior discovery order. (Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss 2, DN
19). After McDowell failed to respond to the motion, the Court directed him to respond to the
pending motion or otherwise show cause as to why the Court should not grant the motion and
dismiss the cause by no later than March 31, 2017. (Order, DN 20). McDowell did not respond
to the show cause order or the pending motion.
When McDowell filed this action, he assumed the responsibility to actively litigate his
claims. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the Court to dismiss the action “[i]f the
plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order . . . .” Although federal
courts afford pro se litigants some leniency on matters that require legal sophistication, such as
formal pleading rules, the same policy does not support leniency from court deadlines and other
procedures readily understood by laypersons, particularly where there is a pattern of delay or
failure to pursue a case. See Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991). “[T]he lenient
treatment of pro se litigants has limits. Where, for example, a pro se litigant fails to comply with
an easily understood court-imposed deadline, there is no basis for treating that party more
generously than a represented litigant.” Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996)
(internal citation omitted) (citing Jourdan, 951 F.2d at 110). Courts have an inherent power
“acting on their own initiative, to clear their calendars of cases that have remained dormant
because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,
370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962).
2
Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Orders
shows a failure to pursue his case. Accordingly, by separate Order, the Court will DISMISS the
instant action and will DENY Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (DN 19) AS MOOT.
Greg N. Stivers, Judge
United States District Court
April 3, 2017
cc:
Dustin Ray McDowell, pro se
counsel of record
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?