The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
LEONARD HAYNES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 3:18-CV-175-DCLC-DCP
)
ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL )
SERVICES, INC. and MARY BROWN, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a pro se prisoner’s complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 23, 2019, the
Court entered an order providing that Plaintiff would have twenty-one (21) days from the date of
entry of the order to show cause as to why this matter should not be dismissed for his failure to
prosecute [Doc. 14]. The deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has not complied with this order or
otherwise communicated with the Court.
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 order and chose not to respond. 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 demonstrate cause why the matter should not be dismissed.
Finally, as to the fourth factor, the Court finds that alternative sanctions would not be
effective. Plaintiff was a prisoner proceeding proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 7], and he has not
pursued this case since filing a change of address approximately seven months ago [Doc. 8].
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 ORDER WILL ENTER.
SO ORDERED:
s/Clifton L. Corker
United States District Judge