Kelley v. Williams et al

Filing 33

OPINION AND ORDER Signed by Judge Justin R. Walker on 4/20/2020 granting 32 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. The Court DISMISSES the Complaint with prejudice. cc: Counsel (DLW)

Case 3:18-cv-00350-JRW-CHL Document 33 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 124

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
JAMES D. KELLEY

v.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-00350-JRW-CHL

JIMMY WILLIAMS III, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The Court GRANTS Jimmy Williams III’s unopposed motion to dismiss (DN 32). The
Court DISMISSES the Complaint with prejudice.
OPINION
Williams moved to dismiss the claims against him for lack of prosecution.1 James D.
Kelley did not respond to the motion, and his response deadline expired.2 Kelley has taken no
action in this case in over nine months.3 He has been warned that dismissal with prejudice is on
the table.4 Additionally, Kelley has failed to appear for 5 status conferences.5 Kelley has also
violated numerous court orders.6

1

DN 32.
LR 7.1(c).
3
LR 41.1.
4
DN 21 at #89 (“Kelley is warned that failure to appear and show cause may result in the
issuance of a recommendation that the case be dismissed.”) (emphasis in original).
5
DN 11 (Kelly’s lawyer didn’t appear for the August 15, 2018 telephonic Rule 16 Conference);
DN 16 (Kelley’s lawyer didn’t appear for the March 14, 2019 telephonic status conference); DN
17 (Kelley’s lawyer didn’t appear for the March 28, 2019 telephonic status conference); DN 20
(Kelley’s lawyer didn’t appear for the April 18, 2019 in-person status conference); DN 26 (neither
Kelley nor his lawyer appeared for the June 17, 2019 in-person status conference). Kelley’s lawyer
did appear for the May 21, 2019 show cause hearing. DN 24.
6
See DN 21 (detailing Kelley’s multiple violations of the Court’s orders).
2

1

Case 3:18-cv-00350-JRW-CHL Document 33 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 125

Williams’s motion reiterates the argument his former co-defendant, Howard Baer Inc.,
made in its motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution.7 The Court granted Baer’s motion and
ordered Williams to respond to the order indicating whether he would move for the claims against
him to be dismissed also.8 Williams complied with this order and filed his present motion.9
Nothing in this case has changed since the Court granted Baer’s motion except that Kelley
has failed to respond to yet another motion. Because Kelley has violated numerous orders and has
not prosecuted the case, the Complaint against Williams should be dismissed.10

April 20, 2020

7

DN 28.
DN 31.
9
DN 32.
10
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
8

2