Miller v. Hunter et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION: Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a Court order pursuant to Rule 41(b). AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT ORDER WILL ENTER.Signed by District Judge Travis R McDonough on 5/22/24. (c/m to DaVaughn DM Miller, LAUREL COUNTY JAIL (Hammock Rd), 440 HAMMOCK ROAD, LONDON, KY 40744)(ABF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
DAVAUGHN DM MILLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFF HUNTER, OFFICER BURNS, and
OFFICER WHITT,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:23-cv-413
Judge Travis R. McDonough
Magistrate Judge Debra C. Poplin

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is a prisoner’s pro se complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). On April

25, 2024, the Court entered an order (1) requiring Plaintiff to show good cause as to why the
Court should not dismiss this action for want of prosecution based on his apparent failure to
update his address with the Court within fifteen (15) days of entry of that order and (2) notifying
Plaintiff that failure to timely comply with that order would result in dismissal of this action
(Doc. 6). However, the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) returned the Court’s mail to
Plaintiff containing that show cause order as undeliverable with a notation indicating that
Plaintiff is no longer at the only address he provided to the Court. (Doc. 1, at 3; Doc. 7, at 1.)
Moreover, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s show cause order (Doc. 6), and his time for
doing so has passed. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, this action will be dismissed
pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 41(b) gives this Court the authority to sua sponte dismiss a case when a “plaintiff
fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see

also Rogers v. City of Warren, 302 Fed. Appx. 371, 375 n.4 (6th Cir. 2008)
(“Although Rule 41(b) does not expressly provide for a sua sponte dismissal (the rule actually
provides for dismissal on defendant’s motion), it is well-settled that the district court can enter a
sue sponte order of dismissal under Rule 41(b)” (citing Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630
(1962)). The Court examines four factors when considering dismissal under this Rule:
(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 its
previous order is due to his willfulness or fault, as it appears that Plaintiff has failed to update the
Court as to his most recent address, despite the Court previously notifying him that if he did not
do so within fourteen days of an address change, this could be grounds for dismissal of this
action. (Doc. 3, at 1; Doc. 5, at 2.) As to the second factor, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure
to comply with the Court’s previous order has not prejudiced Defendants. However, the Court
notes that, like the Court, Defendants cannot communicate with Plaintiff about this case without
his current address. As to the third factor, the Court notified Plaintiff that failure to timely
comply with its previous order would result in dismissal of this action (Doc. 6, at 1). Finally, as
to the fourth factor, the Court finds that alternative sanctions are not warranted, as the Court
granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, and he 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).

2

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, 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 responding to the Court’s order or
updating the Court as to his current address, and his pro se status does not mitigate the balancing
of factors under Rule 41(b).
Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED for want of prosecution and failure to
comply with a Court order pursuant to Rule 41(b). 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/ Travis R. McDonough
TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3