United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee
A. VARLAN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a pro se prisoner's complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. On November 10, 2015, the Court entered an order
screening Plaintiff's complaint, dismissing several
claims, and staying the remaining claims until resolution of
Plaintiff's pending criminal charges [Doc. 4]. The Court
also ordered Plaintiff to provide the Court with updates
regarding his criminal charges every ninety days
[Id. at 5]. Plaintiff consistently complied with
this order [Docs. 5-15] until November of 2017, at which time
he filed a motion for extension of time to file a status
report [Doc. 15]. The Court entered an order granting this
motion for extension and stating that Plaintiff had up to and
including December 22, 2017, to file a status report [Doc.
December 22, 2017, deadline passed, however, and Plaintiff
had not filed a status report or otherwise communicated with
the Court. Accordingly, on April 17, 2018, the Court entered
an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause as to why this
matter should not be dismissed within fifteen days of entry
of this order [Doc. 17]. The Court also notified Plaintiff
that if he failed to timely comply with the order, this
matter would be dismissed for failure to prosecute and
failure to comply with Court orders [Id. at 1-2].
The United States Postal Service returned the mail containing
this order to the Court [Doc. 18], however. Further, more
than fifteen days have passed and Plaintiff has not responded
to the order or otherwise communicated with the Court. As
such, for the reasons set forth below, this matter will be
DISMISSED due to Plaintiff's failure to
prosecute and failure to comply with the Court's orders.
41(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure gives this Court
the authority to dismiss a case for “failure of the
plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any
order of the court.” See, e.g., Nye
Capital Appreciation Partners, LLC v. Nemchik, 483
Fed.Appx. 1, 9 (6th Cir. 2012); Knoll v. Am. Tel. &
Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 362-63 (6th Cir. 1999). The
Court considers four factors when considering dismissal under
(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); see Reg'l Refuse Sys., Inc. v. Inland
Reclamation Co., 842 F.2d 150, 155 (6th Cir. 1988).
the first factor, the Court finds that Plaintiff's
failure to respond to or comply with the Court's previous
orders is due to Plaintiff's willfulness and/or fault.
Specifically, despite consistently complying with the
Court's order for status reports, Plaintiff decided not
to continue complying with the Court's order, even after
the Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time to file a
status report in November 2017. Further, it appears that
Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's order because
he failed to update his address and/or monitor this action as
required by Local Rule 83.13.
the second factor, the Court finds that Defendants have not
been prejudiced by Plaintiff's failure to comply with the
the third factor, the Court warned Plaintiff that failure to
timely provide the Court with status reports could cause this
case to be dismissed [Doc. 4 p. 5] and that the Court would
dismiss the case if Plaintiff did not timely comply with the
Court's previous order [Doc. 17 p. 2].
as to the fourth factor, the Court finds that alternative
sanctions would not be effective, as Plaintiff is a prisoner
who was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis
in this action [Doc. 4 p. 1].
reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that the
relevant factors weigh in favor of dismissal of
Plaintiff's action pursuant to Rule 41(b). White v.
City of Grand Rapids, No. 01-229234, 34 Fed.Appx. 210,
211, 2002 WL 926998, at *1 (6th Cir. May 7, 2002) (finding
that a pro se prisoner's complaint “was subject to
dismissal for want of prosecution because he failed to keep
the district court apprised of his current address”);
Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108 (6th Cir. 1991).
Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this
action would not be taken in good faith and would be totally
frivolous. Fed. R. App. P. 24.