Hadnot v. Farrow et al
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION: 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 will CERTIFY that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER. Signed by District Judge Clifton L Corker on 08/21/2019. (Copy of Memorandum mailed to Joshua Hadnot) (AMP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
JOSHUA HADNOT,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC FARROW, et al.,
Defendants.
No.
3:18-CV-248-DCLC-HBG
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On July 18, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff’s pro se prisoner complaint for violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and provided Plaintiff with 30 days from date of entry of the order to amend his
complaint and 20 days to return a service packet for Defendant Farrow [Doc. 8]. 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 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, as it appears that Plaintiff
received the Court’s order and chose not to respond. 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.
Finally, as to the fourth factor, the Court finds that alternative sanctions would not be
effective. Plaintiff was proceeding in forma pauperis [Doc. 6] in this matter, and he has not
pursued this case since filing an unsuccessful motion to appoint counsel [Doc. 5] over a year 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) and the Court will CERTIFY that any
appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER.
_______________________________
CLIFTON L. CORKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?