Treece v. Blount County Justice Center
MEMORANDUM OPINION: 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). Accordingly, this action will be DIS MISSED pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute and/or comply with orders of the Court. The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 11/29/2017. (Copy of Memorandum Opinion mailed to Douglas Treece) (CAT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
DOUGLAS RAY TREECE,
BLOUNT COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER,
This is a pro se prisoner’s complaint for violation of civil rights filed under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. On June 21, 2017, the Court entered an order providing that Plaintiff would have twentyone (21) days from the date of entry of the order to file an amended complaint [Doc. 5]. The Court
also warned Plaintiff that if he failed to timely comply with that order, the Court might dismiss the
action for want of prosecution, failure to comply with orders of the Court, and/or failure to state a
claim [Id. at 2]. More than twenty-one days have passed and Plaintiff has not complied with this
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). 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
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, Plaintiff’s
failure to respond to the Court’s order may be willful (if he received the order and declined to
respond), or it may be negligent (if he did not receive the order because he failed to update his
address and/or monitor this action as required by Local Rule 83.13). Either way, the first factor
weighs in favor of dismissal.
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, the record reflects that the Court warned Plaintiff that the Court might
dismiss this case if he failed to comply with the Court’s order [Doc. 5 p. 2].
Finally, as to the fourth factor, the Court finds that alternative sanctions would not be
effective. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action [Id. at 1]
and Plaintiff has not pursued this action since the entry of the order allowing him to amend the
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). Accordingly, this action
will be DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute and/or comply with orders of
The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
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?