# Brown v. Nichols

> District Court, E.D. Tennessee · January 12, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10434710

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** January 12, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10434710

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10434710. Public record. Not legal advice.