THOMPSON v. SMITH et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Denying without prejudice Defendants' 19 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 7/15/2021. (rss, n.m.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
JACOB THOMPSON,
Plaintiff
v.
WARDEN RICHARD T. SMITH,
AND ASSISTANT WARDEN CHARLES
WARREN,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIV. NO. 20-12454 (RMB-MJS)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants’ motion to
dismiss Plaintiff’s pro se prisoner civil rights complaint for
lack of prosecution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
(Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 19.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b) provides:
(b) Involuntary Dismissal; Effect. If the
plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with
these rules or a court order, a defendant may
move to dismiss the action or any claim
against it. Unless the dismissal order states
otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision
(b) and any dismissal not under this rule-except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper
venue, or failure to join a party under Rule
19--operates as an adjudication on the merits.
Defendants submitted a Certification of Counsel by James R.
Birchmeier, Esq., who certifies that Defendants served discovery
requests, Interrogatories and a Notice to Produce, on Plaintiff on
December 26, 2020. (Certification of Counsel, Dkt. No. 19-1;

Exhibits, Dkt. No. 19-2.) After Plaintiff failed to respond to
their requests for discovery, Defendants served a reminder letter
on Plaintiff on April 8, 2021, notifying Plaintiff that his failure
to respond would cause Defendants to file a motion to dismiss for
failure to prosecute. (Id.)
Plaintiff, acting pro so, is a pretrial detainee confined in
the Cumberland County Jail in Bridgeton, New Jersey. Plaintiff
submitted a letter to the Court in this matter (Letter, Dkt. No.
18), which was received on April 26, 2021. In his letter, Plaintiff
acknowledges Defendants’ discovery requests. He requests that the
Court respond to the discovery requests by submitting copies to
Defendants of Plaintiff’s submissions to the Court.
All documents the Court has received from Plaintiff in this
matter have been filed on the Court’s electronic case management
filing system, CM/ECF. However, it is Plaintiff’s obligation to
respond

directly

to

Defendants’

discovery

requests,

and

his

submissions to this Court do not satisfy his obligations. See
Federal

Rules

of

Civil

Procedure

26(g)(1),

33(b),

34(b)(2).

Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and appears to be unfamiliar
with

the

discovery

procedures,

the

Court

will

deny

without

prejudice Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute.
If Plaintiff does not provide his discovery responses to Defendants
within 30 days from the date of this Order, Defendants may renew
2

their motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS therefore on this 15th day of July 2021,
ORDERED

that

Defendants’

motion

to

dismiss

for

lack

of

prosecution (Dkt. No. 19) is DENIED without prejudice; and it is
further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order on
Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail.
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge

3