Jackson v. Green et al

Filing 35

OPINION MEMORANDUM..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. No. 29], is GRANTED. This matter is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Stay Discovery, [Doc. No. 31], is denied as moot.. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 4/13/18. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.

NICOLE GREEN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No: 1:17CV143 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Ashley Grisham and Charles
Pewitt’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with a Court Order, [Doc. No.
29]. Plaintiff has not responded to the Motion. For the reasons set forth below, the
Motion is granted.
On January 29, 2018, this Court entered a Case Management Order in this
case. The Case Management Order outlined numerous deadlines that were to be
followed by the parties in this matter. The Case Management Order required
parties to file Initial Disclosures as set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(1)(A)(ii) by February 28, 2018. All Defendants filed their Initial Disclosures
before the time ordered by this Honorable Court. Defendants have advised the
Court that to date, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court's Order and has not
provided to Defendants any discovery or Initial Disclosures, as required.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows for the dismissal of a cause of
action due to a plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order. See F.R.C.P. 41(b).
“The district’s court exercise of this power is within the ‘permissible range of its
discretion’ if there has been a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the
plaintiff.” American Inmate Paralegal Assoc. v. Cline, 859 F.2d 59, 62 (8th Cir.
1988) quoting Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986). “Pro se litigants
are not excused from complying with court orders or substantive and procedural
law.” Id. citing Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984).
In this case, the Court ordered Initial Disclosures to be provided by all
parties no later than February 28, 2018. Defendants have advised the Court that
they provided their disclosures, but Plaintiff has not provided Defendants any
Initial Disclosures. The failure to comply with this Court’s order has impaired
these Defendants' ability to prepare appropriate dispositive Motions, conduct
discovery and to otherwise defend this cause of action as they cannot investigate
the likely testimony of any individuals who may be called as witnesses by the
plaintiff in order to prepare for trial.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, [Doc.
No. 29], is GRANTED. This matter is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to
prosecute.

-2-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery,
[Doc. No. 31], is denied as moot.
Dated this 13th day of April, 2018.

_________________________________

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-