Baker v. Ford, et al
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Travis R McDonough on 5/22/19. Serviced via US Mail to David A. Baker. (KFB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT WINCHESTER
DAVID A. BAKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID FORD, LINCOLN COUNTY, and
LINCOLN COUNTY COMMISSION,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:18-cv-28
Judge Travis R. McDonough
Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the Court is a pro se prisoner’s complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On
February 26, 2019, the Court entered an order screening the complaint and providing that
Plaintiff had twenty days from the date of the order to return completed service packets for the
remaining Defendants in this case and warning Plaintiff that if he failed to timely comply
therewith, the Court would dismiss this action. (Doc. 9, at 7–8.) After the Court subsequently
received a notice that Plaintiff’s address had changed on March 11, 2019 (Doc. 10), the Clerk
resent the Court’s February 26, 2019 order to Plaintiff at his updated address the next day.
Plaintiff, however, did not comply with the Court’s order or otherwise communicate with the
Court. Accordingly, on April 26, 2019, the Court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to show
good cause within fifteen days from the date of entry of that order as to why this matter should
not be dismissed for want of prosecution and/or failure to comply with Court orders and
notifying Plaintiff that if he did not do so, this action would be dismissed. (Doc. 11, at 1–2.)
More than twenty days have passed and Plaintiff still has not complied with the Court’s order or
otherwise communicated with the Court. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, this
action will be DISMISSED for failure to comply with Court orders and want of prosecution.
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. Specifically, it appears
that Plaintiff received the Court’s previous orders, 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 orders. (Doc. 9, at 8; Doc. 11, at 1–2.)
Finally, as to the fourth factor, the Court finds that alternative sanctions would not be
effective. Plaintiff was proceeding proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 7) in this case and he is not
responding to the Court’s orders or otherwise communicating with the Court.
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).
The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT WILL ENTER.
/s/ Travis R. McDonough
TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH
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?