Kyle et al v. Garrett
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Accordingly, Plaintiff will be ASSESSED the filing fee of $402.00, and this action will be DISMISSED. All pending motions will be DENIED as moot. The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would no t be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. An Appropriate Judgment Order Will Enter. Signed by District Judge Curtis L Collier on 10/4/2023. (AML) Emailed to Court Financial Deputy and Mailed to Lowell H. Kyle, Sr. and Walker County GA Jail Inmate Account Manager
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
LOWELL H. KYLE, SR,
Plaintiff,
v.
HAMILTON COUNTY SHERIFF
AUSTIN GARRETT,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.:
1:23-CV-171-CLC-SKL
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to proceed in forma pauperis in this pro se prisoner’s civil
rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. (See Doc. 11.) Finding that the motion was not properly
supported, the Court entered an Order on August 22, 2023, providing Plaintiff thirty (30) days
within which to submit a certified copy of his inmate trust account for the previous six-month
period. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s Order, and the time for doing so
has passed.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the Court may dismiss a case for a failure
of the plaintiff “to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b); see also Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 362-63 (6th Cir. 1999); see also
Rogers v. City of Warren, 302 F. App’x 371, 375 n.4 (6th Cir. 2008) (“Although Rule 41(b) does
not expressly provide for a sua sponte dismissal (the rule actually provides for dismissal on
defendant’s motion), it is well-settled that the district court can enter a sue sponte order of
dismissal under Rule 41(b).” (citing Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962))). The Court
examines four factors when considering dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b):
Case 1:23-cv-00171-CLC-SKL Document 16 Filed 10/04/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 55
(1) whether the party’s failure is due to willfulness, bad faith, or
fault; (2) whether the adversary was prejudiced by the dismissed
party’s conduct; (3) whether the dismissed party was warned that
failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and (4) whether less
drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal was
ordered.
Wu v. T.W. Wang, Inc., 420 F.3d 641, 643 (6th Cir. 2005).
First, Plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with the Court’s Order was due to Plaintiff’s
willfulness or fault. Plaintiff has chosen not to comply with, or even respond to, the Court’s
Order. Second, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order has not
prejudiced Defendant, as process has not issued in this case. Third, the Court’s Order expressly
warned Plaintiff that a failure to timely submit a certified copy of his inmate trust account would
result in the dismissal of this action (Doc. 13 p. 2.) Finally, the Court concludes that alternative
sanctions are not warranted, as Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s clear instructions.
On balance, these factors support dismissal of this action under Rule 41(b).
Moreover, “while 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.” Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff’s pro se status did not prevent him from complying with the Court’s Order, and
Plaintiff’s pro se status does not mitigate the balancing of factors under Rule 41(b).
Accordingly, Plaintiff will be ASSESSED1 the filing fee of $402.00, and this action will
be DISMISSED. All pending motions will be DENIED as moot.
1
“Section 1915(b)(1) compels the payment of the [filing] fees at the moment the
complaint . . . is filed.” McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 607 (6th Cir. 1997).
2
Case 1:23-cv-00171-CLC-SKL Document 16 Filed 10/04/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 56
The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith
and would be totally frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).
AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT ORDER WILL ENTER.
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
/s/
CURTIS L. COLLIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Case 1:23-cv-00171-CLC-SKL Document 16 Filed 10/04/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 57
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?