Walters et al v. Brooks et al, No. 3:2020cv00129 - Document 26 (E.D. Tenn. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION in support of the following Judgment Order. Signed by District Judge Thomas A. Varlan on 8/26/20. (c/m Melvin Walters, Jr SCOTT COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER 575 SCOTT HIGH DR HUNTSVILLE, TN 37756) (ADA)

Download PDF
Walters et al v. Brooks et al Doc. 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE MELVIN WALTERS, JR., Plaintiff, v. BOBBY BROOKS, TAMMY REAGAN, and ROBERT SEXTON, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No.: 3:20-CV-129-TAV-HBG MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a pro se prisoner’s complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 4, 2020, the Court entered an order providing that Plaintiff would have twenty (20) days from the date of entry of the order to show cause as to why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute [Doc. 22]. The deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has not complied with the show cause order. Further, the United States Postal Service returned the Court’s mail containing the show cause order as undeliverable, with a notation indicating that the inmate was no longer at the address of record [Doc. 25]. 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): Case 3:20-cv-00129-TAV-HBG Document 26 Filed 08/26/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 113 Dockets.Justia.com (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). As to the first factor, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to respond to or comply with the Court’s previous show cause order is due to Plaintiff’s willfulness and/or fault. Specifically, it appears that Plaintiff did not receive the order because he failed to update his address and/or monitor this action as this Court’s Local Rule 83.13 requires. 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 orders. Finally, as to the fourth factor, the Court finds that alternative sanctions would not be effective. Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis [Doc. 16], and has not communicated with the Court or pursued this case in several months [See, e.g., Doc. 18]. 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 order would not be taken in good faith. AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER. s/ Thomas A. Varlan UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 Case 3:20-cv-00129-TAV-HBG Document 26 Filed 08/26/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 114

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.