United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Greeneville
Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger
R. McDONOUGH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a prisoner in the Tennessee Department of Corrections who was
previously confined in the Sullivan County Jail, filed a
pro se complaint for violation of his civil rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 setting forth a conclusory
claim alleging refusal to treat his carcinoma. (Doc. 2, at
2.) On June 3, 2019, the Court entered an order screening the
complaint and providing that Plaintiff had twenty days from
the date of entry of the order to file an amended complaint.
(Doc. 7.) Plaintiff complied with this order. (Doc. 8.)
on September 5, 2019, the Court entered an order screening
Plaintiff's amended complaint, providing that
Plaintiff's claims that Defendants Jones and Sawyer were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs would
proceed, allowing Plaintiff thirty days to file a second
amended complaint against any other officers that he alleged
had demonstrated deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs, allowing Plaintiff's excessive force
claims against Defendants Lawson, Sawyer, and Jones to
proceed, allowing Plaintiff's claim against Defendant
Wade arising out of other inmates beating Plaintiff up to
proceed, and dismissing all other claims. (Doc. 10.) The
Court also directed the Clerk to send Plaintiff service
packets for the remaining Defendants, ordered Plaintiff to
complete the service packets and return them to the Court
within twenty days of entry of the order, and warned
Plaintiff that if he failed to timely comply with the order,
the Court may dismiss this action. (Id. at 10-11.)
September 12, 2019, the United States Postal Service returned
the Clerk's mail containing this order to the Court with
a notation indicating that Plaintiff was no longer at the
address to which the Clerk had sent the mail. (Doc. 11.)
Accordingly, on that same day, the Clerk re-sent the order to
Plaintiff at the most recent address that Plaintiff had
provided the Court. (Doc. 9; Doc. 11 (docket entry).) More
than four weeks have passed since the Clerk resent the order
to Plaintiff at the last current address that Plaintiff
provided the Court, and Plaintiff has not returned completed
service packets to the Court, filed an amended complaint, or
otherwise communicated with the Court.
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.
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
order is due to Plaintiff's willfulness or fault.
Specifically, as set forth above, it appears that Plaintiff
received the Court's order but chose not to comply with
it. As such, the first factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
Next, as to the second factor, the Court finds that
Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's order
has not prejudiced Defendants. Also, as to the third factor,
the Court warned Plaintiff that the Court may dismiss this
case if he failed to comply with the Court's order. (Doc.
10, at 11.) Finally, as to the fourth factor, the Court finds
that alternative sanctions would not be effective. The Court
granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis
in this matter (Doc. 4), and Plaintiff has not complied with
the Court's most recent order or otherwise communicated
with the Court.
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) and the Court
CERTIFIES that any appeal from this order
would not be taken in good faith.
APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER.
 While Plaintiff did not name an
Officer Wade as a Defendant in his complaint or amended
complaint, the Court allowed a claim against this officer to
proceed in its order screening Plaintiff's amended
complaint. (Doc. 10, at 9.) Accordingly, the Clerk will be
DIRECTED to update the Court's docket to