# Pitre

> District Court, W.D. Louisiana · November 25, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11231709

## Case

- **Full name:** Joseph A. Pitre v. Julius Alsandor et al
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** November 25, 2025
- **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/11231709

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11231709. Public record. Not legal advice.