Healy v. Burnhart et al
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. The Court concludes that the relevant factors weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiffs action pursuant to Rule 41(b), and the Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge Curtis L Collier on 7/23/2019. (BDG) Opinion mailed to Healy.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
JOHN HEALY,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT BURNHART, RALPH DYERS,
JEREMY GOINS, and PAUL HAWKINS,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.
3:18-CV-36-CLC-DCP
MEMORANDUM
This is a pro se prisoner’s complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 22, 2019, the Court
entered an order requiring Plaintiff to provide the Court with information regarding Defendants
within twenty-one days of entry of the order (See Doc. 9). Specifically, the Court noted that the
summonses for each individual Defendant were returned with a notation that the persons on the
summonses were inmates, not correctional officers, and it ordered Plaintiff to provide the Court
with additional information about Defendants Burnhart, Dyers, Goins, and Hawkins “to clarify the
record and assist with service” (Id. p. 2). Approximately two months has passed since entry of the
order, and Plaintiff has not responded to the order or otherwise communicated with the Court.
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. This 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 has not explicitly warned Plaintiff that his failure to respond
to the Court’s order could result in the dismissal of this case, but it has advised Plaintiff that he
cannot maintain this § 1983 action against other inmates, and that he must provide the Court with
additional information to pursue this action (Doc. 9). Plaintiff has ignored that warning, and this
factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
Finally, as to the fourth factor, the Court finds that alternative sanctions would not be
effective. Plaintiff was proceeding in forma pauperis (Doc. 5) in this matter, and he has not
pursued this case or communicated with the Court in over a year.
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), and the Court CERTIFIES that any
appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
An Appropriate Order Will Enter.
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
2
/s/_____________________________________
CURTIS L. COLLIER
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?