The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
JIMMY R. BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 3:20-CV-400-RLJ-DCP
)
GRAINGER COUNTY SHERIFF’S )
OFFICE, CHRIS HARVILLE, and )
GRAINGER COUNTY MEDICAL )
STAFF, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a pro se prisoner’s complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 28,
2020, the Court entered an order providing Plaintiff fifteen days to file an amended complaint
[Doc. 8]. Plaintiff has not complied with that order and the time for doing so has passed.
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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 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).
As to the first factor, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with the
Court’s previous order was due to Plaintiff’s willfulness or fault. Specifically, it appears that
Plaintiff received the Court’s order but chose not to comply or otherwise communicate with the
Court. As to the second factor, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s
order has not prejudiced Defendants, as they have not yet been served. As to the third factor, the
Court’s previous order warned Plaintiff that failure to timely file an amended complaint would
result in dismissal of this action [Id. at 6]. Finally, as to the fourth factor, the Court finds that
alternative sanctions are not warranted, as Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s clear
instructions. On balance, the Court finds that these factors support dismissal of this action under
Rule 41(b).
The Court also notes that, “while pro se litigants may be entitled to some latitude when
dealing with sophisticated legal issues, acknowledging their lack of formal training, there is no
cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural requirements that a layperson can
comprehend as easily as a lawyer.” Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991). Nothing
about plaintiff’s pro se status prevented him from complying with the Court’s order [Id.], and
Plaintiff’s pro se status does not mitigate the balancing of factors under Rule 41(b).
Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED for want of prosecution pursuant to Rule
41(b). The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith
and would be totally frivolous. Fed. R. App. P. 24.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/ Leon Jordan
United States District Judge