Townsend v. Blount County Jail et al, No. 3:2019cv00466 - Document 6 (E.D. Tenn. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by District Judge Travis R McDonough on 12/30/2019. (BDG)Order mailed to Townsend.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Townsend v. Blount County Jail et al Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE THOMAS TOWNSEND, Plaintiff, v. BLOUNT COUNTY JAIL, JAMES BERRONG, CHRIS CANTRELL, T. HUTSELL, and PERRY COVINGTON, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:19-CV-466 Judge Travis R. McDonough Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton MEMORANDUM OPINION This case involves a pro se prisoner’s complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 22, 2019, the Court entered an order screening the complaint and providing that Plaintiff had thirty days from the date of entry of the order to return a service packet for the remaining Defendant [Doc. 5]. The Court also warned Plaintiff that if he failed to timely comply with that order, the Court would dismiss this action [Id. at 5-6]. More than thirty days have passed, and Plaintiff has not complied with this order or otherwise communicated with the Court. 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 F. App’x 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b): (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 Dockets.Justia.com (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). 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 or fault. Specifically, it appears that Plaintiff received the Court’s order, but chose not to comply. As such, the 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 not prejudiced Defendants. 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. Finally, as to the fourth factor, the Court finds that alternative sanctions would not be effective. Plaintiff was proceeding in forma pauperis [Doc. 5] in this matter and lacks the financial resources to pay any monetary sanction. For the 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). The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this decision would not be taken in good faith. AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER. /s/ Travis R. McDonough TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
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.
