Brown v. Nichols

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

DOMINIC BROWN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) No.: 3:19-CV-476-RLJ-HBG

v. )

)

)

BILLY NICHOLS, Z. BARBEE, and )

F/N/U JACKSON, )

)

Defendants. )

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This pro se prisoner’s civil rights action for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is before the

Court for consideration of dismissal. On December 15, 2021, this Court entered an order providing

that Plaintiff would have fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of the order to show cause as to

why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute [Doc. 74]. The deadline has

passed, and Plaintiff has not complied with the order or otherwise communicated with the Court.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the Court may dismiss a case for a failure of

the plaintiff “to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b);

Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 362-63 (6th Cir. 1999); see also Rogers v. City of

Warren, 302 F. App’x 371, 375 n.4 (6th Cir. 2008) (“Although Rule 41(b) does not expressly

provide for a sua sponte dismissal (the rule actually provides for dismissal on defendant’s motion),

it is well-settled that the district court can enter a sue sponte order of dismissal under Rule 41(b).”

(citing Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962))). 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).

Plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with the Court’s order is due to Plaintiff’s willfulness

or fault. This Court has granted Plaintiff numerous extensions in this cause and has advised

Plaintiff of the necessary steps to proceed [See, e.g., Docs. 41, 48, 51, 55, 64, 69, 71, 73]. Plaintiff

has failed to comply with these orders, and in fact, he has not responded at all to the Court’s last

two orders. The Court finds that this failure to comply with the Court’s orders has not resulted in

any extreme prejudice to Defendants, as they have not filed answers in this cause. However, this

Court explicitly advised Plaintiff in its most recent order that no further extensions of time would

be granted in this cause, and the Court’s local rules further warn pro se plaintiff’s that failure “to

timely respond to an order or pleading addressed to the last address provided to the Clerk may

result in dismissal of the case or other appropriate action.” E.D. Tenn. L.R. 83.13. The Court

finds that alternative sanctions are not warranted, as Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s

clear instructions, and this action has been stagnant for months.

Moreover, “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). Plaintiff’s pro se status

did not prevent him from complying with the Court’s order, and Plaintiff’s pro se status does not

mitigate the balancing of factors under Rule 41(b). Therefore, on balance, these factors support

dismissal of this action under Rule 41(b).

The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.

AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER.

ENTER:

s/ Leon Jordan

United States District Judge