Ultimate Cakra Liberation et al v. Trinity Food Service et al

Filing 78

ORDER of dismissal as to Defendants Dietz, Perry, and Mathews. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 3/4/2022. (Mays, Samuel)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
CHARLES ORLANDO FIELDS
a/k/a NOBLE:BUDDHA-ANGAVU:SISHYA
a/k/a ULTIMATE CAKRA LIBERATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRINITY FOOD SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-cv-01190-SHM-cgc

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
I.

Background
On October 17, 2019, the Court enter an Order partially

dismissing

Plaintiff

Orlando

Fields’

(“Fields”)

initial

and

supplemental complaints. (D.E. 37.) The Court decided that Fields
had sufficiently pled an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant
Bernard

Dietz

(“Dietz”),

a

First

Amendment

claim

against

Defendant Grady Perry (“Perry”), and a First Amendment claim
against Defendant Darlene Mathews (“Mathews”). (D.E. 37, PAGEID
909.) The Court dismissed all other claims and Defendants.
On

January

20,

2022,

the

Court

entered

an

Order

that

addressed outstanding discovery and service issues. (D.E. 68.)
The Court directed Fields to supplement deficient discovery

responses within thirty (30) days of the entry of the Order. It
admonished Fields that failure to supplement deficient discovery
responses

would

result

in

sanctions

under

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

37(b)(2)(A). The Court also ordered Fields show cause why his
claims against Mathews and Dietz should not be dismissed without
prejudice for: (1) Fields’ failure to take reasonable measures
to effect timely service; or (2) Fields’ failure to prosecute
claims against Dietz and Mathews. The Court directed Fields to
respond within thirty (30) days of the entry of the Order.
Since entry of the Court’s January 20, 2022 Order, Fields
has refused to accept mail sent by both the Clerk of Court and
defense counsel. (D.E. 72; 73; 76.) On February 11, 2022, Fields
filed a Notification of Record that repeated aspects of his two
complaints and his discovery objections. (D.E. 74.) On February
25, 2022, Fields filed a Notice with questions, directed to
Defendants and the Court, that Fields intends to ask prior to
the “start of proceedings.” (D.E. 77.) Fields has not responded
to the Court’s January 20, 2022 Order, has not supplemented
deficient discovery responses, and has not perfected service on
Dietz or Mathews.
II.

Standard of Review
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A), courts

can

impose

sanctions

for

a

party’s

failure

to

comply

with

discovery orders. ECIMOS, LLC v. Nortek Glob. HVAC, LLC, 736 F.
2

App’x

577,

582

(6th

Cir.

2018)(citing

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

37(b)(2)(A)). Potential sanctions include “striking pleadings in
whole or in part,” “staying further proceedings until the order
is obeyed,” and “dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or
in part.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). Courts may impose Rule
37(b)(2)(A) sanctions sua sponte. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.,
501 U.S. 32, 42 n.8 (1991) (finding that courts “generally may
act

sua

sponte

in

imposing

sanctions

under

the

Rules”);

Prudential Def. Sols., Inc. v. Graham, No. 20-11785, 2021 WL
4810498,

at

*9

(E.D.

Mich.

Oct.

15,

2021)

(imposing

Rule

37(b)(2)(A) sanctions sua sponte).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), courts can
“dismiss an action for failure of a plaintiff to prosecute the
claim or to comply with the Rules or any order of the court.”
Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Dep’t, 529 F.3d 731, 736 (6th
Cir. 2008) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). Courts have the power
under Rule 41(b) to enter a sua sponte dismissal. See Carpenter
v. City of Flint, 723 F.3d 700, 704 (6th Cir. 2013); Carter v.
City of Memphis, Tenn., 636 F.2d 159, 161 (6th Cir. 1980).
To determine whether dismissal is appropriate under either
Rule 37(b)(2)(A) or Rule 41(b), courts consider four factors:
(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
3

warned that failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and
(4) whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered
before dismissal was ordered.

United States v. Reyes, 307 F.3d

451, 458 (6th Cir. 2002). Courts apply a relaxed standard to a
dismissal without prejudice “because the dismissed party is
ultimately not irrevocably deprived of his day in court.”

Muncy

v. G.C.R., Inc., 110 Fed. Appx. 552, 556 (6th Cir. 2004).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, a summons must be
served upon each defendant along with a copy of the complaint.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(b)&(c)(1). The plaintiff “is responsible for
having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed
by Rule 4(m).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1). Rule 4(m) provides that,
“[i]f

a

defendant

is

not

served

within

90

days

after

the

complaint is filed, the court — on motion or on its own after
notice

to

the

plaintiff

—

must

dismiss

the

action

without

prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made
within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Rule 4(m) also
provides that, “[i]f the plaintiff shows good cause for the
failure, the court must extend the time for service for an
appropriate period.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The Court has the
discretion to grant additional time for service even if there is
no good cause shown. See Stewart v. Tennessee Valley Auth., No.
99-5723, 2000 WL 1785749, at *1 (6th Cir. 2000).

4

III. Analysis
A.

Claim Against Perry

Fields’ claim against Perry should be dismissed. Fields has
willfully ignored the rules of discovery and has in bad faith
failed to comply with the Court’s January 20, 2022 Order. To
support a finding of willfulness or bad faith, the plaintiff’s
actions

“must

display

either

an

intent

to

thwart

judicial

proceedings or a reckless disregard for the effect of his conduct
on those proceedings.” Schafer, 529 F.3d at 737. The plaintiff’s
actions must demonstrate a “clear record of delay or contumacious
conduct.” Freeland v. Amigo, 103 F.3d 1271, 1277 (6th Cir. 1997).
The Court instructed Fields to supplement deficient discovery
responses. Fields has failed to comply with the Court’s order.
Fields has refused to accept mail from the Clerk of Court and
defense counsel. Over the same period, Fields has made two
nonresponsive
demonstrates

filings
a

with

“clear

the

record

Court.

of

delay

Fields’
or

conduct

contumacious

conduct.” Freeland, 103 F.3d at 1277.
Fields’

conduct

has

prejudiced

Perry.

A

defendant

is

prejudiced where the plaintiff’s conduct causes the defendant to
waste

time,

money,

and

effort

in

pursuit

of

something

the

plaintiff was already legally obligated to provide. Schafer, 529
F.3d at 737. Perry propounded discovery requests on May 5, 2020.
He filed an Initial Motion to Compel on September 10, 2020, and
5

an Amended Motion to Compel on November 11, 2020. (D.E. 54; 57.)
After nearly two years, Perry still awaits proper discovery
responses. Perry has spent significant time, money, and/or effort
in an attempt to force Fields to comply with orders and rules
that Fields was already legally obligated to follow. See Schafer,
529 F.3d at 737.
The Court explicitly warned Fields that failure to comply
with the Court’s order would result in sanctions that could
include

dismissal.

(D.E.

68,

PAGEID

1352-53.)

(“Fields

is

admonished that the Court has now ordered him to comply with
discovery requirements. Failure to obey the Court’s orders may
result in sanctions that include dismissal of this action without
further

notice,

default

judgment,

and/or

contempt

of

court

proceedings.”)
The

Court

dismissal.
“reasonable

In

has
the

considered
Amended

expenses

sanctions

Motion

incurred

in

to

less

Compel,

preparing

drastic
Perry
[the]

than

sought
motion,

including attorney’s fees . . . .” (D.E. 57, PAGEID 1156.) The
Court declined to award expenses because Fields had theretofore
proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis.
All four factors weigh in favor of dismissal. Because Fields
willfully ignored the rules of discovery and has in bad faith
failed to comply with the Court’s January 20, 2022 Order, the
claim against Perry is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
6

B.

Claims Against Dietz and Mathews

Fields’

claims

against

Mathews

and

Dietz

should

be

dismissed for failure to effect timely service. Fields filed his
initial and supplemental complaints in 2017. To date, Fields has
not perfected service on Dietz or Mathews. The Court notified
Fields that failure to perfect service would result in the
dismissal of his claims. Fields has offered no explanation for
his failure to serve Dietz or Mathews and has not established
good cause. The Court declines to extend the time to perfect
service. Such an extension would be futile and would create undue
delay. Because Fields has failed to effect timely service, the
claims against Mathews and Dietz are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
In the alternative, the Court finds that Fields’ claims
against Mathews and Dietz should be dismissed for failure to
prosecute. Fields’ failure to prosecute is not clearly the result
of willfulness or bad faith. However, Fields has taken no steps
to serve Mathews or Dietz. The Court finds Fields at fault. The
lapse of time alone is sufficient to prejudice Mathews and Dietz.
The Court warned Fields that failure to prosecute would result
in the dismissal of his claims. Alternative sanctions would be
ineffective. Because of Fields’ failure to prosecute, the claims
against Dietz and Mathews are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

7

IV.

Conclusion
Fields’ claim against Perry is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Fields’ claims against Dietz and Mathews are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Because the Court has dismissed all of Fields’ claims,
judgment will enter consistent with the terms of this Order and
the Order dated October 17, 2019.
SO ORDERED this 4th day of March, 2022.

/s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8