Jordan v. Knox County Detention Facility
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Pamela L Reeves on 7/25/19. (copy mailed to Anthony Jordan at Knox County Detention Facility) (JBR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
ANTHONY JORDAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
KNOX COUNTY DETENTION
FACILITY, JIMMY JONES, CHIEF
TARLEY, and JOHN DOE,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:17-CV-335-PLR-DCP
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a pro se prisoner’s complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 14, 2019, the Court
entered an order providing that Plaintiff would have fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of
the order to show cause as to why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute [Doc.
13]. The Court also warned Plaintiff that if he failed to timely comply with that order, the Court
would dismiss this action [Id. at 2]. More than thirty days have passed, and Plaintiff has not
complied with this order.
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 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
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. As such, 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 Defendants.
As to the third factor, the Court warned Plaintiff that the Court would dismiss this case if
he failed to comply with the Court’s order [Doc. 13 p.2].
Finally, as to the fourth factor, the Court finds that alternative sanctions would not be
effective. Plaintiff was a prisoner proceeding proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 11] and he has not
pursued this case since sending a letter to the Court [Doc. 10] approximately fifteen (15) months
ago.
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).
The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER.
SO ORDERED.
___
__________________________________
__
__ _
_____________________________________
C
CHIEF UNITED STATES D
N ED
D
T DISTRICT JUDGE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JU
2
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?