Robinson v. Price et al (GPR)
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION to be set forth more fully in the following order. Signed by District Judge Thomas A Varlan on August 5, 2019. (copy mailed to Ephriam Bartholomew Robinson, 505 Shoma Drive, Shelbyville, TN 37160) (AYB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EPHRIAM B. ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
SABRINA PRICE,
TIM LOCKEY, and
AUSTIN SWING,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.:
4:17-CV-69-TAV-SKL
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a pro se prisoner’s complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 14, 2019,
the Court entered an order providing that Plaintiff had fifteen days from the date of entry
of the order to file an amended complaint [Doc. 6 p. 4–5]. On June 28, 2019, however, the
United States Postal Service returned this mail to the Court [Doc. 7]. Accordingly, on July
2, 2019, the Clerk resent the order to Plaintiff’s permanent address as listed in the complaint
[Doc. 2 p. 3]. In the order, the Court warned Plaintiff that if he failed to timely comply
therewith, the Court would dismiss this action [Doc. 6 p. 5]. More than eighteen days have
passed since the Clerk resent the order to Plaintiff’s permanent home address and Plaintiff
has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise communicated with the Court, however.
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 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. Specifically,
as set forth above, it appears that Plaintiff received the Court’s order, but chose not to
comply therewith. 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 [Id.].
Finally, as to the fourth factor, the Court finds that alternative sanctions would not
be effective. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter
[Doc. 4] and he has not pursued the case since a notice of change of address [Doc. 3] with
the Court more than eighteen months ago.
2
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Thomas A. Varlan
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?