Harrison v. Sullivan County Sheriff Department 82B Jail
MEMORANDUM OPINION in support of the following Judgment Order. Signed by District Judge J. Ronnie Greer on 3/11/20. (c/m Brandon Dwaine Harrison at 536 Kincaid Street Kingsport, TN 37660 ) (ADA) Modified on 3/11/2020 to update mailing address (ADA).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
BRANDON DWAINE HARRISON,
This is a pro se prisoner’s complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983. More than two
weeks ago, the United States Postal Service returned the last order the Court mailed to Plaintiff as
undeliverable with a notation indicating that Plaintiff is no longer at the last current address
Plaintiff provided to the Court [Doc. 12]. Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court since the
return of this mail. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, this matter will be DISMISSED
due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s orders.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure gives this Court the authority to dismiss
a case for “failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of the
court.” See, e.g., Nye Capital Appreciation Partners, L.L.C. v. Nemchik, 483 F. App’x 1, 9 (6th
Cir. 2012); Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 362–63 (6th Cir. 1999). The Court
examines four factors when considering dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b):
(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
Wu v. T.W. Wang, Inc., 420 F.3d 641, 643 (6th Cir. 2005); see Reg’l Refuse Sys., Inc. v. Inland
Reclamation Co., 842 F.2d 150, 155 (6th Cir. 1988).
As to the first factor, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to receive the Court’s order
and/or update his address is due to Plaintiff’s willfulness and/or fault, as both the Clerk and the
Court have specifically warned Plaintiff that failure to provide a correct address to this Court
within fourteen days of any change in address may result in the dismissal of this action [Doc. 4 p.
1; Doc. 5 at 5].
As to the second factor, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s
order has not prejudiced Defendant.
As to the third factor, again, both the Clerk and the Court warned Plaintiff that the Court
may dismiss this case if he did not timely update his address [Doc. 4 at 1; Doc. 5 at 5].
Finally, as to the fourth factor, the Court finds that alternative sanctions are not warranted.
Although Plaintiff listed other addresses in his complaint where he may or may not be residing
currently [Doc. 1 at 3] and the Clerk will be DIRECTED to send a copy of this memorandum
opinion and the accompanying order to those addresses, the record establishes that Plaintiff has
failed to comply with the Court’s clear instructions despite being warned that failure to do so could
result in dismissal of this matter.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that the relevant factors weigh in favor
of dismissal of Plaintiff’s action pursuant to Rule 41(b). White v. City of Grand Rapids, No. 01229234, 34 F. App’x 210, 211, 2002 WL 926998, at *1 (6th Cir. May 7, 2002) (finding that a pro
se prisoner’s complaint “was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution because he failed to keep
the district court apprised of his current address”); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108 (6th Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED for want of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b).
The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith
and would be totally frivolous. Fed. R. App. P. 24.
AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER.
s/J. RONNIE GREER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?