United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Greeneville
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
pro se prisoner's civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 was filed on June 8, 2015 [Doc. 1]. On April 13,
2018, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order, screening the
complaint to determine whether, inter alia, the
pleading failed to state a claim which would entitle
Plaintiff to relief under § 1983 [Doc. 11]. The Court
found that while “Plaintiff's complaint, as stated,
does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted as
filed against the Defendants, some of Plaintiff's
allegations could state a claim, if amended”
[Id. at 13]. Thus, the Court ordered Plaintiff to
file an amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the
entry of the Court's Order [Id.].
than twenty-one days have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to
amend her complaint or otherwise respond to the Court's
Order. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) 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, L.L.C. 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). Involuntary
dismissal under Rule 41(b) “operates as an adjudication
on the merits.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); see Link v.
Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The
authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a
plaintiff's action with prejudice because of his failure
to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.”).
Court examines 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.
the first factor, the Court finds that Plaintiff's
failure to respond or comply can be attributed to her own
willfulness or fault. Plaintiff failed to file an amended
complaint, despite being instructed by the Court to do so.
Pursuant to Local Rule 83.13, it is the duty of a pro se
party to promptly notify the Clerk and the other parties to
the proceedings of any change in his or her address, to
monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend
the action diligently. E.D. Tenn. L.R. 83.13. Further, the
Court previously updated Plaintiff's present address in
the Court's docket, despite Plaintiff's failure to
notify the Court of her change of address [Doc. 11 p. 1].
“Pro se status does not exempt a plaintiff from the
requirement that he comply with relevant rules of procedural
and substantive law.” Thorpe v. Ragozzine, No.
1:07-cv-155, 2008 WL 1859878, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 23,
2008) (citing Hulsey v. Texas, 929 F.2d 168, 171
(5th Cir. 1991)). Accordingly, the Court finds that the first
factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
second factor does not weigh in favor of dismissal; as the
Defendants have not been served, they have not been
prejudiced by the delay. However, the third factor clearly
weighs in favor of dismissal, as Plaintiff has failed to
comply with the Court's Order, despite being expressly
warned of the possible consequences of such a failure.
Finally, the Court finds that alternative sanctions would not
be effective. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis; therefore, the Court has no
indication that Plaintiff has the ability to pay a monetary
fine. The Court thus concludes that, in total, the factors
weigh in favor of dismissal of Plaintiff s action with
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).
this action will be DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE, sua sponte, for want of
prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also
Link v. Wabash RR Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)
(recognizing the court's authority to dismiss a case
sua sponte for lack of prosecution); White v.
City of Grand Rapids, 34 Fed.Appx. 210, 211 (6th Cir.
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, 110 (6th Cir. 1991). The Court
CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action
would not be taken in good faith and would be totally
frivolous. See Fed. R. App. P. 24. Therefore, should
Plaintiff file a notice of appeal, she will be
DENIED leave to appeal in forma
pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App.