Keltner v. Schofield et al
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION as set forth in following order. Signed by District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 4/12/19. (c/m to William Keltner #462275, SOUTH CENTRAL CORRECTIONAL CENTER, P O BOX 279, CLIFTON, TN 38425)(ABF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WILLIAM KELTNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DERRICK SCHOFIELD,
DOUG COOK,
DARREN SETTLES, and
VALERIE NICHOLS,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.:
3:16-CV-180-TAV-DCP
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This pro se case, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, is now before the Court due to
Plaintiff’s failure to respond or comply with this Court’s orders. On August 16, 2018, this
Court entered an order, granting Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
ordering Plaintiff to complete the service packets provided to him by the Clerk’s Office
and to return those packets to the Clerk’s Office within twenty days of receipt of the Order
[Doc. 4]. Plaintiff was forewarned that “failure to timely return the completed service
packets could jeopardize his prosecution of this action” [Id. at 17]. The Court further
ordered Plaintiff to “immediately inform the Court and Defendants or their counsel of
record of any address changes in writing” pursuant to Local Rule 83.13 [Id.]. The Order
was mailed to Plaintiff at the address listed on his Complaint. Over six months have passed,
and Plaintiff has not returned the service packets or responded to the Court’s order in any
way.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) 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).
Involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) “operates as an adjudication on the merits.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The authority
of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice because of his failure
to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.”).
The Court considers four factors when considering dismissal under Rule 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 Regional Refuse Sys., Inc.
v. Inland Reclamation Co., 842 F.2d 150, 155 (6th Cir. 1988).
With respect to the first factor, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute
this action can be attributed to his own willfulness or fault. Notably, the attempt made by
this Court to contact Plaintiff regarding his case has been unsuccessful. Whether willful
or negligent, Plaintiff has failed to update his address and/or monitor this action as required
by Local Rule 83.13. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.13, it is the duty of the pro se party to
monitor the progress of the case and to prosecute or defend the action diligently. See E.D.
Tenn. L.R. 83.13. Accordingly, the first factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
2
The second factor, however, weighs against dismissal; since the Defendant has not
yet been served, there has been no prejudice by Plaintiff’s inactions.
By contrast, the third factor clearly weighs in favor of dismissal, as Plaintiff has
failed to comply with the Court’s orders, despite being expressly warned of the possible
consequences of such a failure [Doc. 4 p. 17].
Finally, the Court finds that alternative sanctions would not be effective. Plaintiff
has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; therefore, there is no indication
that Plaintiff has the ability to pay a monetary fine. There seems little purpose allowing
alternative sanctions where Petitioner has apparently abandoned his case even after being
threatened with its dismissal, which shows a lack of respect for this Court’s deadlines and
orders.
The Court thus concludes that, in total, the factors weigh in favor of dismissal of
Plaintiff’s action pursuant to Rule 41(b). For the reasons discussed herein, this action is
hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b).
AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER.
s/ Thomas A. Varlan
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?