United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Chattanooga
Jordan United States District Judge
a pro se prisoner's complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Now before the Court is Plaintiff's motion
to add Defendant [Doc. 10]. Also, in reviewing the docket,
the Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to timely comply
with its order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint [Doc. 8]. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth
below, Plaintiff's motion to add Defendant [Doc. 10] will
be DENIED and this action will be
DISMISSED with prejudice due to
Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's order
pursuant to Rule 41(b).
MOTION TO ADD DEFENDANT
motion, Plaintiff seeks to add Reid Thomas as a Defendant
based on allegations that on June 8, 2019, she
“aggressively knocked [him] to the ground, ”
causing him to hit a metal table with metal stools in a
manner that resulted in injuries for which he was
subsequently denied medical care despite making a report to
Nurse Sparks [Doc. 10 p. 1-2]. Plaintiff also, however,
states that ten days after this incident, he saw a doctor who
diagnosed him and referred him to a neurosurgeon for his
injuries [Id. at 2]. Plaintiff states that he seeks
more than one million dollars based on these allegations
Court previously notified Plaintiff, however, under Rule
20(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, persons may
only be joined in one action as defendants where “(A)
any right to relief is asserted against them jointly,
severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising
out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or
fact common to all defendants will arise in the
action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2). Thus, Rule 20 does not
permit plaintiffs to join unrelated claims against different
defendants in one lawsuit. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d
605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
in Plaintiff's motion allows the Court to plausibly infer
that Plaintiff's proposed claim against Reid Thomas
arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences as those in Plaintiff's
complaint or that Plaintiff seeks relief against Reid Thomas
and other Defendants in this matter jointly, severally, or in
the alternative. To the contrary, it is apparent that
Plaintiff's claim against Reid Thomas is unrelated to his
other claims and that Plaintiff seeks more than one-million
dollars from Reid Thomas alone [Id.]. Thus,
Plaintiff's proposed claim against Reid Thomas would not
be properly joined in this action under Rule 20(a)(2) and
Plaintiff's motion to add Defendant [Doc. 10] will be
FAILURE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
19, 2019, the Court entered an order noting that
Plaintiff's complaint did not comply with Rule 20(a)(2)
and providing that Plaintiff had twenty days from the date of
entry of the order to file an amended complaint [Doc. 8 p.
2-3, 5]. The Court also warned Plaintiff that if he failed to
timely comply with that order, the Court would dismiss this
action [Id. at 5]. More than thirty-five days have
passed since entry of this order and while Plaintiff has
filed another supplement to his motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis [Doc. 9] and his motion to add
Defendant [Doc. 10], Plaintiff has not filed an amended
complaint as required by the Court's previous order.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, this action
will be DISMISSED.
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). The 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.
Plaintiff's failure to respond to or comply with the
Court's order is due to Plaintiff's willfulness
and/or fault. Specifically, it appears that Plaintiff
received the Court's order, but chose not to comply
therewith. As such, the first factor weighs in favor of
the second factor, Plaintiff's failure to comply with the
Court's order has not prejudiced Defendants.
the third factor, the Court warned Plaintiff that the Court
would dismiss this case if he failed ...