Palmer v. Lincoln County Sheriffs Dept. et al
Filing
8
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). The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 05/21/2018. (Copy of Memorandum Opinion mailed to Christopher Palmer, Jr. at 1045 Horsehead Rd., Pikeville, TN 37367) (CAT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT WINCHESTER
CHRISTOPHER PALMER, JR,
Plaintiff,
v.
LINCOLN COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF MURRAY
BLACKWELDER, OFFICER SHANNON
BOSTIC, DOUG BOERNGER, JOYCE
MCCONNEL, MIKE HILL, MIKE PITTS,
JEFF BRADFORD, VICKI ALLISON,
DAVID FORD, and CHRIS THORTON,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:16-CV-015-JRG-SKL
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a pro se prisoner’s civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On
April 5, 2018, the Court entered an order screening Plaintiff’s complaint and allowing Plaintiff
fifteen days from the date of entry of the order to file an amended complaint [Doc. 7]. More than
eighteen 1 days have passed and Plaintiff has not complied with this order or otherwise
communicated with the Court. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, this matter will be
DISMISSED due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s orders.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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
1
Service of the Court’s previous order was made by mail pursuant to Rule 5(b)(2)(C) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, Plaintiff had an additional three days to
respond to the order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
Cir. 2012); Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 362–63 (6th Cir. 1999). The Court
considers 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. Specifically, it appears that
Plaintiff either received the Court’s order and decided not to respond thereto or failed to update
his address and/or monitor this action as this Court’s Local Rule 83.13 requires.
As to the second factor, the Court finds that Defendants have not been prejudiced by
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order.
As to the third factor, the Court warned Plaintiff that the Court would dismiss the case if
Plaintiff did not timely comply with the Court’s previous order [Doc. 7 at 4].
Finally, as to the fourth factor, the Court finds that alternative sanctions would not be
effective. Plaintiff was a prisoner who was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this
action [Doc. 4 at 1] and Plaintiff has not pursued this action since filing his complaint and motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Docs. 1, 2, and 3] more than two years 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). White v. City of Grand Rapids, No. 01229234, 34 F. App’x 210, 211, 2002 WL 926998, at *1 (6th Cir. May 7, 2002) (finding that a pro
2
se prisoner’s complaint “was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution because he failed to keep
the district court apprised of his current address”); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108 (6th Cir. 1991).
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 ORDER WILL ENTER.
ENTER:
s/J. RONNIE GREER
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?