United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Greeneville
L. COLLIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
pro se prisoner's civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 was filed on December 20, 2017 [Doc. 2]. On March
7, 2018, the Court found that Plaintiff's complaint, as
pled, did not state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
but allowed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within
twenty-one (21) days of the entry of the Court's Order
[Doc. 4 p. 10]. Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of
time to file an amended complaint on April 2, 2018 [Doc. 5].
On April 11, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion
for an extension of time, and allowed Plaintiff thirty days
from the date of entry of the Court's Order to file an
amended complaint [Doc. 6]. After Plaintiff filed to respond
or file an amended complaint within thirty days, on May 25,
2018, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within
fifteen days as to why his case should not be dismissed due
to lack of prosecution [Doc. 7].
than fifteen days have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to
amend his 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 Plaintiff's failure to
respond or comply can be attributed to his 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. “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
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 several of the Court's orders, despite being
expressly warned of the possible consequences of such a
failure. Finally, the Court finds alternative sanctions would
not be effective. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis; therefore, the Court has
no indication Plaintiff has the ability to pay a monetary
fine. Additionally, the Court has provided Plaintiff with
several opportunities to respond in order to avoid dismissal.
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 R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630- 31 (1962)
(recognizing the court's authority to dismiss a case with
prejudice 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