Smallwood v. Monroe County, TN et al, No. 3:2020cv00168 - Document 7 (E.D. Tenn. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION in support of the following Judgment Order. Signed by District Judge Clifton L. Corker on 6/2/20. (c/m Craig A Smallwood SHELBY COUNTY DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS 1045 MULLINS STATION ROAD MEMPHIS, TN 38134 )(ADA)

Download PDF
Smallwood v. Monroe County, TN et al Doc. 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE CRAIG A. SMALLWOOD, Plaintiff, v. MONROE COUNTY, TN, SGT. SKINNER, C.O. BARNETT, and CHIEF MEDINA, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:20-CV-168-DCLC-DCP MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a pro se prisoner’s complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 12, 2020, the Court entered an order providing that Plaintiff would have fifteen days from the date of entry of the order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and/or comply with orders of the Court [Doc. 6]. The order also cautioned Plaintiff that failure to timely comply with the order would result in a dismissal of the action [Id. at 1]. More than fifteen 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 Case 3:20-cv-00168-DCLC-DCP Document 7 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 32 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 and/or fault. Specifically, it appears that Plaintiff received the order and chose not to respond. 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 a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, and he has not pursued this case beyond filing the initiating pleadings. 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. SO ORDERED: s/Clifton L. Corker United States District Judge 2 Case 3:20-cv-00168-DCLC-DCP Document 7 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 33

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.