Faulkner v. Jones et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION as set forth in following order. Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 4/18/18. (ABF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
DAVID CHESTER FAULKNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
JIMMY JONES, JOHN DOE, and
JANE DOE,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.:
3:15-CV-510-TAV-HBG
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a pro se prisoner’s civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On March 14, 2018, the Court entered an order screening Plaintiff’s complaint and
allowing Plaintiff fifteen days from the date of entry of the order to file an amended
complaint [Doc. 5]. More than fifteen days have passed and Plaintiff has not complied
with the order or otherwise communicated with the Court. Further, the United States Postal
Service returned the mail containing the order to the Court as undeliverable with a notation
indicating that Plaintiff has been released [Doc. 6 p. 2]. 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 Rule 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, LLC 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 considers 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 ordered.
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 respond to or comply
with the Court’s previous order is due to Plaintiff’s willfulness and/or fault. Specifically,
it appears that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order because he failed to update
his address and/or monitor this action as required by this Court’s Local Rule 83.13.
As to the second factor, the Court finds that Defendants have not been prejudiced
by Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order.
As to the third factor, the Court warned Plaintiff that the Court would dismiss the
case if Plaintiff did not timely comply with the Court’s previous order [Doc. 5 p. 6].
Finally, as to the fourth factor, the Court finds that alternative sanctions would not
be effective. Plaintiff was a prisoner who was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis
in this action [Doc. 5 p. 1] and Plaintiff has not pursued this action since filing his motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 4] almost two and a half years ago.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that the relevant factors weigh
in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff’s action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). White
2
v. City of Grand Rapids, 34 F. App’x 210, 211 (6th Cir. 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).
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/ Thomas A. Varlan
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?