United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BROWN United States Magistrate Judge.
reasons stated below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that
this case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to
prosecute and to obey Court orders.
Plaintiff filed a complaint against Officer Jones and the
Smyrna Police Department on September 8, 2016 (Docket Entry
1). After initial review (Docket Entry 8) the Plaintiff was
allowed to proceed in forma pauperis against Officer
Jones. The matter was referred to me for case management and
a report and recommendation on any dispositive matter.
summarized in the District Judge's review, the Plaintiff
alleged that on June 14, 2016, he was in a physical
altercation with someone else and the police were called. He
alleged that knowing that he had two warrants for failure to
appear he went outside to wait for the arrival of the police
and that when they arrived he laid on his stomach with his
hands behind his back, offering no resistance. He alleged
that Defendant Jones flew into a “blind rage”
over a suspicion that the Plaintiff had beaten a female
victim and picked up the Plaintiff by his arms so
aggressively that he snapped the Plaintiff's forearm. He
alleges that the injury caused him to have a plate and screw
used to repair his arm.
Court found that this did state a colorable claim against
Officer Jones for the use of excessive force.
service of process was complete, an answer was filed (Docket
Entry 15), and a scheduling order (Docket Entry 16) was
entered. The scheduling order specifically provided that all
discovery would be completed by June 13, 2017, and that the
Plaintiff was required at all times to keep a current address
on file with the court.
February 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a notice of change of
address (Docket Entry 22).
Officer Jones filed a motion on July 11, 2017 (Docket Entry
28) to compel the Plaintiff to answer interrogatories and
requests for production. In the motion he alleged that the
first set of interrogatories and requests for production of
documents were sent to the Plaintiff in January of 2017,
while he was still incarcerated. A second set of discovery
was then mailed to his home in Alabama at the address that he
had provided and is reflected on the court docket sheet. They
allege that his mother signed for the discovery documents
sent to Alabama on February 13, 2017. When a timely response
was not received the Defendant's counsel state they
mailed a letter to the Plaintiff informing him the responses
were overdue and offering an extension to April 5, 2017, to
respond. They allege that as of July 11, 2017, they
have received no response whatever from the Plaintiff.
result of this motion the undersigned entered an order
(Docket Entry 30) for the Plaintiff to show cause by July 31,
2017, why the undersigned should not recommend that his case
be dismissed for failure to respond to discovery and to
prosecute his case. The Plaintiff was advised that he could
satisfy the show cause order by fully complying with the
discovery requests that were sent to him by July 31, 2017.
The Plaintiff was specifically warned that failure to show
cause or to comply with the discovery requests would result
in a recommendation that his case be dismissed for failure to
prosecute and to obey Court orders.
Court has received no response one way or the other from the
Plaintiff and the Defendant has now filed a motion to dismiss
(Docket Entry 31) noting that they have not received any
response to their discovery requests as of the date of filing
their motion on August 14, 2017.
action is subject to dismissal for want of prosecution where
the pro se litigant fails to comply with the
Court's order, and engages in a pattern of delay.
Gibbons v. Assets Acceptance Corporation, 2006 WL
3452521, *1 (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 29, 2006).
Courts have the inherent power, exercisable in its sound
discretion, to dismiss a case for want of prosecution in
order to management their own affairs so as to achieve the
orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Link v.
Wabash Railroad, 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); Smith