Pitre

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LAFAYETTE DIVISION

JOSEPH A PITRE CASE NO. 6:22-CV-05166

VERSUS JUDGE DAVID C. JOSEPH

JULIUS ALSANDOR ET AL MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID J. AYO

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before this Court is a MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S

ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY filed by defendant Housing Authority of Opelousas (“OHA”).

(Rec. Doc. 38). This motion is unopposed. The undersigned issues the following report and

recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Considering the evidence, law, and argument,

and for the reasons explained below, this Court recommends that the OHA’s motion be

GRANTED and, accordingly, all remaining claims by Plaintiff Joseph A. Pitre against OHA

be DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice.

Factual Background

Pitre filed suit, appearing pro se, in this Court on August 30, 2022 alleging violations

of his civil rights by OHA, its Executive Director, members of OHA’s Board of Directors, and

Opelousas Mayor Julius Alsandor. (Rec. Doc. 1). Pitre claims that he was named as OHA’s

Interim Executive Director in 2020 but was not selected for the position on a permanent basis

because of discrimination and retaliation based on sex and age. (Rec. Doc. 1-1). Having

enrolled counsel in the interim, Pitre amended his Complaint on May 5, 2023. (Rec. Doc. 11).

Pitre’s claims against Mayor Alsandor, OHA Executive Director Toya Chavis, and board

members Mary Alice Cole, Linda Prudhomme, Anna Simons, and Johnnie B. Simmons were

dismissed on September 15, 2023 based on Pitre’s failure to effect service upon these

defendants within applicable delays. (Rec. Doc. 15). Pitre enrolled new counsel on his behalf

on February 6, 2024. (Rec. Doc. 17). Trial was set for May 27, 2025. (Rec. Doc. 24). Pitre

next sought to substitute his former counsel for his then-current counsel, which was granted

on June 12, 2024. (Rec. Doc. 28). On January 29, 2025, Pitre’s counsel again sought to

withdraw. (Rec. Doc. 31). This Court granted the motion, rendering Pitre a pro se litigant

once again. (Rec. Doc. 33). Following a telephone scheduling conference before the

undersigned, trial was reset for January 26, 2026. (Rec. Doc. 40). During the telephone

conference, counsel for OHA raised the issue of outstanding discovery, which Pitre felt he

could not answer without certain case documents he did not have because of the withdrawal

of his prior counsel. (Rec. Doc. 38). To assist Pitre, OHA’s counsel agreed to forward a copy

of Pitre’s deposition transcript, his Original and Amended Complaints, all propounded

discovery and the Rule 26(f) report to Pitre via U.S. Mail. (Id.).

OHA filed a Motion to Compel on June 11, 2025 seeking responses to discovery

propounded upon Pitre in October of 2024 in conjunction with a Notice of Deposition. (Rec.

Doc. 41). This Court set the motion for hearing with oral argument, directing Pitre to appear

in person. (Rec. Doc. 42). A hearing was held on July 21, 2025, at which Pitre appeared, pro

se, and attorney Gregory Belfour appeared on behalf of OHA. (Rec. Doc. 46). Following that

hearing, the undersigned issued an order granting OHA’s Motion to Compel and directing

Pitre to “provide complete and thorough responses to all discovery propounded upon him by

OHA on or before August 11, 2025.” (Rec. Doc. 47 at p. 2). This order reiterated the warning

given to Pitre in open court that any failure to comply would subject Pitre to sanctions,

including dismissal for failure to prosecute his case. (Id.).

OHA’s instant Motion to Dismiss, filed on August 21, 2025, seeks dismissal based on

Pitre’s continued failure to comply with discovery as ordered. (Rec. Doc. 48). Specifically,

OHA asserts that Pitre failed to provide any response to Interrogatories 16, 20, or 21 and

provided insufficient responses to Interrogatories 5 and 11. (Rec. Doc. 48-2 at pp. 1–2). OHA

further notes that, despite admitting that he possessed certain relevant documents,

requested for production in October 2024, Pitre has never produced any documents in this

matter. (Id. at p. 2). Briefing delays were set by Notice of Motion Setting issued the same

date. (Rec. Doc. 49). Pitre filed no brief in opposition or other response.

Applicable Standards

Rule 16(f)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the imposition of

sanctions, including those authorized under Rule 37(b)(2)(A), where a party fails to comply

with a court’s discovery or scheduling order. Particularly relevant here, Rule 37(d)

specifically provides for sanctions where a party fails to answer interrogatories or requests

for production of documents. Subsection (b)(2)(A)(v) includes the dismissal “in whole or in

part” of the suit as an available sanction in such instances.

Dismissal is an appropriate sanction where the plaintiff’s failure to comply with court

orders arises from willfulness or bad faith, accompanied by a record of delay or contumacious

conduct, and which conduct would not be deterred by lesser sanctions. Hickman v. Fox

Television Station, Inc., 177 Fed. App’x 427, 428 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-

CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir. 1992); Stearman v. Comm’r, 436 F.3d 533, 535 (5th

Cir. 2006)). Additional factors, such as whether the delay was caused by plaintiff and not his

counsel, actual prejudice to the defendant, and whether the delay was caused by intentional

conduct can be considered. Id. (citing Price v. McGlathery, 792 F.2d 472, 474 (5th Cir. 1986)).

Analysis

The record before this Court indicates that Pitre has willfully failed to comply with

this Court’s July 21 order directing him to provide “complete and thorough” answers to all

discovery propounded upon him by OHA. (Rec. Doc. 47). At the hearing on OHA’s Motion to

Compel, Pitre expressed worry that in providing responses to discovery, he would “subject

himself to some unforeseen penalty or liability because of his incomplete knowledge or

understanding of certain events” and was overwhelmed at the thought of responding to

discovery, such that he had not actually reviewed the propounded discovery at that time. (Id.

at p. 1). Noting Pitre’s pro se status and his understandable lack of legal experience, this

Court nevertheless advised Pitre during the hearing to work to provide responses to all

interrogatories and requests for production propounded by OHA, as such was his obligation

under Rule 37.

The record does not indicate that Pitre is somehow unable to provide responses to

Interrogatories 16, 20, and 21, or that his failure to obey this Court’s July 21 order is due to

the actions or inactions of his former counsel. OHA is entitled to conduct discovery in this

case and is unduly prejudiced by Pitre’s failure to provide ordered responses. Finally, Pitre’s

failure to provide complete and thorough responses is admittedly willful. Having considered

the facts in this matter, including the many opportunities afforded to Pitre to answer OHA’s

outstanding discovery, this Court finds that no sanction lesser in severity than dismissal will

cure Pitre’s contumacious conduct or mitigate the prejudice to OHA in preparing this case for

the assigned January 26, 2026 trial date.

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed herein, the Court recommends that the MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY (Rec. Doc. 48)

be GRANTED and, accordingly, that all remaining claims by plaintiff Joseph A. Pitre against

sole remaining defendant Opelousas Housing Authority be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

for failure to comply with the Court’s orders and for failure to prosecute under Rules 16 and

37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), parties

aggrieved by this recommendation have fourteen days from service of this report and

recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may

respond to another party’s objections within fourteen days after being served with of a copy

of any objections or responses to the district judge at the time of filing.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the proposed

legal conclusions reflected in the report and recommendation within fourteen days following

the date of its service, or within the time frame authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), shall bar

an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions

accepted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error.

THUS DONE in Chambers, aa

DAVIDJ.AYO |

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE