Jones v. Jarnigan et al, No. 2:2020cv00203 - Document 21 (E.D. Tenn. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION in support of the following Judgment Order. Signed by District Judge Clifton L. Corker on 12/20/21. (c/m Matthew D Jones 4199 Dan Drive MORRISTOWN, TN 37814 ) (ADA)

Download PDF

Jones v. Jarnigan et al Doc. 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT GREENEVILLE MATTHEW D. JONES, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM BATES, Defendant. No.: 2:20-CV-203-DCLC-CRW MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a pro se prisoner’s complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss this action for Plaintiff’s failure to cooperate in discovery and prosecute his case [Doc. 19]. Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion, and the deadline to do so has passed. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.1. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On April 8, 2021, Defendant sent Plaintiff his “First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded to Plaintiff” via U.S. Mail [Doc. 17-1 p. 2-13]. After Plaintiff failed to timely answer or object to the requests, Defendant moved to compel Plaintiff’s discovery responses, but the motion was denied without prejudice due to Defendant’s failure to demonstrate that he had made a good-faith effort to resolve the issue without Court intervention [See Docs. 15 and 16]. Defendant subsequently mailed Plaintiff a letter dated August 30, 2021, inquiring about Plaintiff’s responses and advising him that a motion to compel would be filed unless Plaintiff communicated with Defendant on or before September 9, 2021 [Doc. 17-1 p. 1]. Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant, who filed a renewed motion to compel on October 19, 2021 [Doc. 17]. On October 19, 2021, the Court granted Defendant’s motion and required Plaintiff Case 2:20-cv-00203-DCLC-CRW Document 21 Filed 12/20/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 72 Dockets.Justia.com to respond to the propounded discovery within twenty-one (21) days of entry of the Order [Doc. 18]. The Order cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of this action upon Defendant’s motion [Id. at 2]. Thereafter, Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant or this Court, and Defendant filed the instant motion on November 10, 2021 [Doc. 19]. II. DISCUSSION Rule 37(b) and Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure each provide that dismissal is an appropriate sanction for failure to comply with a Court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Under either provision, the Court considers four factors when considering dismissal: (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. Hartsfield v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 4:18-cv-69, 2020 WL 1539337, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 2, 2020) (quoting Mager v. Wisconsin Central Ltd., 924 F.3d 831, 837 (6th Cir. 2019)). As to 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 and/or fault. Specifically, Plaintiff refused to cooperate in discovery, resulting in this Court issuing an Order requiring Plaintiff to do so [See Doc. 18]. Thereafter, Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Order. As such, this first factor weighs in favor of dismissal. As to the second factor, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order has prejudiced Defendant, who despite spending significant time and resources attempting to conduct discovery, has nonetheless been unable to properly prepare for trial due to Plaintiff’s lack of cooperation. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 2 Case 2:20-cv-00203-DCLC-CRW Document 21 Filed 12/20/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 73 As to the third factor, the Court warned Plaintiff that the Court would dismiss this case if he failed to comply with the Court’s Order [Doc. 18]. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. Finally, as to the fourth factor, the Court finds that alternative sanctions would not be effective. Plaintiff was a prisoner proceeding proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 4], and he has disregarded the Court’s warnings that he must comply with the ordered discovery [Doc. 18]. Accordingly, alternative sanctions would be futile, and this factor also weighs in favor of dismissal. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that the relevant factors weigh in favor of dismissal of this action. Therefore, Defendants’ motion [Doc. 19] will be GRANTED, and this action will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24. AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER. SO ORDERED: s/Clifton L. Corker United States District Judge 3 Case 2:20-cv-00203-DCLC-CRW Document 21 Filed 12/20/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 74

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.