Pierson v. Grayson County Detention Center et al
Filing
71
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 6/23/2021: The Court will dismiss this action by separate order for Pierson's failure to comply with a straightforward order of this Court by failing to file a response to Swift's motion for summary judgment. cc: Devan Pierson, pro se; counsel of record (EAS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
OWENSBORO DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:18CV-00068-JHM
DEVAN LAMONT PIERSON
PLAINTIFF
VS.
GRAYSON COUNTY DENTENTION CENTER, et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on a motion by Defendant Randy Swift for summary
judgment. [DN 69]. Four months after this motion was filed, pro se Plaintiff Devan Lamont
Pierson still had not filed a response. The Court issued an Order giving Pierson an additional 30
days to respond to the pending motion, and the Court warned Plaintiff “that this action will be
dismissed for failure to comply with an Order of this Court.” [DN 70]. Plaintiff has not filed a
response to Swift’s pending motion for summary judgment, and the time to do so has passed.
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 generally accorded
to 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) (cleaned up).
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).
Because Pierson has failed to comply with a straightforward Order of this Court by failing
to file a response to Swift’s motion for summary judgment, despite being warned that dismissal
would occur without compliance, the Court will dismiss this action by separate Order.
cc:
Devan Lamont Pierson, pro se
counsel of record
June 23, 2021
2
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?