Williams v. Robinson et al, No. 3:2021cv00248 - Document 31 (E.D. Tenn. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER in support of the following Judgment Order. Signed by District Judge Katherine A. Crytzer on 7/27/22. (c/m Daniel L Williams 398170 MORGAN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX PO BOX 2000 WARTBURG, TN 37887) (ADA)

Download PDF
Williams v. Robinson et al Doc. 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE DANIEL L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. BRANDON ROBINSON and JONATHAN CORBIN, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:21-CV-248-KAC-DCP MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On June 16, 2022, the Court entered an Order identifying that Defendants had indicated to the Court that Plaintiff informed Defendants’ counsel, both in a letter and on the phone, that Plaintiff wants to dismiss this action [Doc. 30 at 1–2]. Defendants also filed a letter from Plaintiff indicating that Plaintiff wants to dismiss this action [See Docs. 29, 29-1]. In the Order, the Court required Plaintiff to show good cause as to why it should not dismiss this action based on his representations to Defendants and notified Plaintiff that, if he desired to continue this action in contravention to his representations to Defendants, he must show good cause within fifteen (15) days of entry of that Order [Doc. 30 at 1-2]. The Court also warned that it would dismiss this action if Plaintiff did not respond to the Order [Id.]. Plaintiff has not responded to the Order or otherwise communicated with the Court, and his time for doing so has passed. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the Court may dismiss a case for a plaintiff’s failure “to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 362-63 (6th Cir. 1999); see also Rogers v. City of Warren, 302 Fed. Appx. 371, 375 n.4 (6th Cir. 2008) (“Although Rule 41(b) does not expressly provide for a sua sponte dismissal (the rule actually provides for dismissal on defendant’s motion), Dockets.Justia.com it is well-settled that the district court can enter a sue sponte order of dismissal under Rule 41(b).” (citing Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962))). The Court examines four factors when considering dismissal under Rule 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 (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). Here, Plaintiff indicated to Defendants that he does not desire to move forward with this action, and he confirmed that intent by failing to indicate otherwise in response to the Court’s Order. The Court specifically warned Plaintiff that it would dismiss this action, consistent with his representations, if he did not respond to the Court’s Order [Doc. 31 at 1-2]. The Defendants would not be prejudiced by the dismissal of this action. And lesser sanctions would not be consistent with Plaintiff’s stated intent to dismiss this action. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action with prejudice under Rule 41(b). The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). Should Plaintiff file a notice of appeal, he is DENIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24. SO ORDERED. AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT WILL ENTER. ENTER: s/ Katherine A. Crytzer KATHERINE A. CRYTZER 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.