Pendergrast v. West et al
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION.Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on November 22, 2019. (SAC)Mailed to Pendergrast.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT WINCHESTER
CARL PENDERGRAST,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARY WEST, AUSTIN SWING, CHAD
GRAHAM, JENNIFER LITTLE,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MILLER,
AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
WATTS,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.
4:19-CV-027-HSM-SKL
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, a former inmate in the Bedford County Jail, filed a complaint for violation of his
civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 setting forth claims arising out of the conditions of his
confinement and other alleged violations of his constitutional rights [Doc. 2]. On October 30,
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]. The Court also warned Plaintiff that if he failed
to timely comply with that order, this case would be dismissed for want of prosecution and/or
failure to comply with Court orders [Id. at 3]. More than three weeks have passed, and Plaintiff
has not complied with this order.
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 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. Plaintiff was proceeding in forma pauperis [Doc. 4] in this matter and has not responded
to or complied with the Court’s most recent order.
As the Court concludes that the relevant factors weigh in favor of dismissal of this action
for the reasons set forth above, this action will be DISMISSED for want of prosecution and failure
to comply with Court orders pursuant to Rule 41(b).
2
The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT ORDER WILL ENTER.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._______
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
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?