Green v. West et al, No. 3:2019cv00311 - Document 17 (E.D. Tenn. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION: the Court concludes that the relevant factors weigh in favor of dismissal of this action. Therefore, Defendants' motion [Doc. 15] will be GRANTED, and this action will be DISMISSED without prejudice. The Co urt CERTIFIES that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on August 10, 2020. (copy mailed to Craig Clark Green 292224 c/o BLEDSOE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX, 1045 HORSEHEAD ROAD, PIKEVILLE, TN 37367) (AYB)

Download PDF

Green v. West et al Doc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE CRAIG CLARK GREEN, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. MARY WEST, Defendant. No. 3:19-CV-00311-JRG-DCP 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 based pursuant to the Court’s Order granting Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s interrogatories [Doc. 14]. 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 Defendant sent counsel written discovery requests on October 2, 2019 [Doc. 12-1]. Plaintiff did not respond by the deadlines imposed by Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter notifying Plaintiff of the failure and demanding a response within thirty days [Doc. 12-2]. Plaintiff responded to the discovery on December 16, 2019, with incomplete responses [See Doc. 14]. On March 17, 2020, Defendant sent Plaintiff a discovery dispute letter, to which Plaintiff failed to respond [Doc. 12-3]. Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion to compel, and on June 15, 2020, this Court found Plaintiff had failed to respond to five of Defendant’s interrogatories and ordered him to provide complete responses within twenty-one days of entry of the Order [Doc. 14]. The Court further Case 3:19-cv-00311-JRG-DCP Document 17 Filed 08/10/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 81 Dockets.Justia.com advised Plaintiff that any failure to provide said responses by the deadline would result in the dismissal of Plaintiff’s lawsuit [Id.]. Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Order and provide complete responses to the interrogatories or otherwise communicate with Defendant’s counsel [See Doc 15-1]. On July 10, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss [Doc. 15]. 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); 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 answer certain interrogatories, resulting in this Court issuing an order requiring Plaintiff to do so [See Doc. 14]. 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 has spent significant time and resources attempting to conduct discovery with an uncooperative Plaintiff. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. 2 Case 3:19-cv-00311-JRG-DCP Document 17 Filed 08/10/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 82 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. 14]. 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. 5], and he has disregarded the Court’s warnings that he must comply with the ordered discovery [Doc. 14]. Accordingly, this factor 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. 15] will be GRANTED, and this action will be DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER. ENTER: s/J. RONNIE GREER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 Case 3:19-cv-00311-JRG-DCP Document 17 Filed 08/10/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 83

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.