Pritchard v. Sheppard et al

Filing 46

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION as set forth in following order. Signed by District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 12/18/20. (c/m to Clinton Lee Pritchard #485740, MORGAN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX, PO BOX 2000, WARTBURG, TN 37887)(ABF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
CLINTON LEE PRITCHARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
LEANNE SHEPPARD and
LINDY FAGEN BYRGE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.:

3:19-CV-186-TAV-HBG

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a prisoner’s pro se complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On
November 2, 2020, the Court entered an order (1) granting Defendants’ motion to compel
discovery; (2) directing the Clerk to send Plaintiff a copy of Defendants’ discovery
requests; (3) ordering Plaintiff to respond to those discovery requests within thirty (30)
days of entry of that order; (4) notifying Plaintiff that if he failed to timely comply with
that order, this action would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure; and (5) ordering Defendants to file a notice with the Court if they did not
timely receive Plaintiff’s responses to their discovery requests [Doc. 43 pp. 1–2].
Defendants have now notified the Court that Plaintiff did not timely respond to their
discovery requests despite this order [Doc. 44]. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth
below, this action will be DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 41(b).1
1

Defendants have now filed a motion to dismiss this action due to want of prosecution
[Doc. 45]. However, due to Plaintiff’s clear record of failing to prosecute this case as set forth
herein, the Court will sua sponte dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 41(b) rather than wait to rule
on that motion, and the Clerk will be DIRECTED to terminate this motion [Id.] as moot.

Case 3:19-cv-00186-TAV-HBG Document 46 Filed 12/18/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 235

Rule 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b);
Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 362–63 (6th Cir. 1999). The Court examines
four (4) 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).
As to the first factor, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with
the Court’s previous order was due to Plaintiff’s willfulness or fault. Specifically, it
appears that Plaintiff received the Court’s previous order but chose not to comply or
otherwise communicate with the Court. As to the second factor, the Court finds that
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order has prejudiced Defendants, as Plaintiff
has failed to respond to their discovery requests. As to the third factor, the Court’s previous
order warned Plaintiff that failure to timely comply with the Court’s previous order would
result in dismissal of this action [Doc. 43, p. 2]. Finally, as to the fourth factor, the Court
finds that alternative sanctions are not warranted, as Plaintiff has failed to comply with the
Court’s clear instructions. On balance, the Court finds that these factors support dismissal
of this action under Rule 41(b).
The Court also notes that, “while pro se litigants may be entitled to some latitude
when dealing with sophisticated legal issues, acknowledging their lack of formal training,
2

Case 3:19-cv-00186-TAV-HBG Document 46 Filed 12/18/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 236

there is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural requirements that
a layperson can comprehend as easily as a lawyer.” Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109
(6th Cir. 1991). Nothing about plaintiff’s pro se status prevented him from complying with
the Court’s order [Doc. 43], and Plaintiff’s pro se status does not mitigate the balancing of
factors under Rule 41(b).
Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED for want of prosecution pursuant to
Rule 41(b) and the Clerk will be DIRECTED to terminate Defendants’ motion to dismiss
for want of prosecution [Doc. 45] as moot. The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from
this action would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. Fed. R. App.
P. 24.
AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT ORDER WILL ENTER.

s/ Thomas A. Varlan
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 3:19-cv-00186-TAV-HBG Document 46 Filed 12/18/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 237