Papineau v. Conway et al
Filing
43
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr on 6/12/2019: The Court will dismiss this action by separate order. cc: counsel, Plaintiff (pro se) (JM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT OWENSBORO
MICHAEL A. PAPINEAU
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17-CV-P166-JHM
SGT. CONWAY et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. On February 5, 2019, Defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment. On March 14, 2019, the Court entered an Order directing
Plaintiff to file a response to the motion within 30 days. That Order provided Plaintiff guidance
on how to respond to a motion for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and warned
Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the Order would result in dismissal of the action. Instead
of filing a response, Plaintiff filed a motion to “continue proceedings until witnesses can be
subpoenaed.” On April 17, 2019, the Court denied the motion to continue because the Court had
entered an Order on September 4, 2018, directing the Clerk to send Plaintiff blank subpoena
forms and advising Plaintiff that the completed forms, along with a motion for the Clerk to issue
the subpoenas, had to be returned to the Court within 30 days of entry of the Order. The Court
further noted that it had entered a Revised Scheduling Order on the same date which stated that
all pretrial discovery was to be completed by December 27, 2018, and that Plaintiff had failed to
show good cause to extend discovery as required by the Revised Scheduling Order. Finally, the
Court observed that the three subpoenas tendered by Plaintiff were deficient because they did not
comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1) which requires that fees be tendered for the per diem and
mileage associated with subpoenaing each witness to a deposition. After denying Plaintiff’s
motion to continue, the Court again ordered Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ pending
motion for summary judgment within 30 days and warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply
with the Order would result in dismissal of the action. On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed two
additional subpoenas. Plaintiff, however, has still not filed a response to Defendants’ pending
motion for summary judgment.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the involuntary dismissal
of an action if a plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with an order of the court. See Jourdan
v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) recognizes the power of the
district court to enter a sua sponte order of dismissal.”). “[W]hile pro se litigants may be entitled
to some latitude when dealing with sophisticated legal issues, acknowledging their lack of formal
training, there is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural requirements
that a layperson can comprehend as easily as a lawyer.” Id. “[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). Additionally,
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
Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court by
failing to file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, despite being warned
that dismissal would occur without compliance, the Court will dismiss this action by separate
Order.
Date:
June 12, 2019
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of Record
4414.011
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?