Pace v. Partin et al, No. 4:2022cv00017 - Document 6 (E.D. Tenn. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION in support of the following Judgment Order. Signed by District Judge Clifton L. Corker on 5/5/22. (c/m Samuel Lee Pace, Jr #63615 COFFEE COUNTY JAIL 76 County Jail Lane MANCHESTER, TN 37355) (ADA)

Download PDF
Pace v. Partin et al Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT WINCHESTER SAMUEL LEE PACE, JR., Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF CHAD PARTIN, LT. TAMMY WARREN, SGT. FORREST BLACKBURN, COFFEE COUNTY JAIL, and SGT. BECKY LYNN, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 4:22-CV-17-DCLC-SKL MEMORANDUM OPINION Samuel Lee Pace, Jr. is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action for violations of 42 U.S.C. §1983 [See Doc. 4]. On March 31, 2022, this Court entered an Order screening Plaintiff’s complaint and provided Plaintiff twenty-one (21) days from entry of the Order to file an amended complaint [Id. at 8]. The Court warned Plaintiff that it would dismiss this action if Plaintiff failed to timely comply with that Order [Id.]. Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s Order, and the time for doing so has passed. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the Court may dismiss a case for a failure of the plaintiff “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), 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b): Case 4:22-cv-00017-DCLC-SKL Document 6 Filed 05/05/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 69 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). First, Plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with the Court’s Order was due to Plaintiff’s willfulness or fault. Plaintiff has chosen not to comply with, or even respond to, the Court’s Order. Second, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order has not prejudiced any Defendant(s), as service has not issued in this case. Third, the Court’s Order expressly warned Plaintiff that a failure to timely submit a certified copy of his inmate trust account would result in the dismissal of this action. Finally, the Court concludes that alternative sanctions are not warranted, as Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s clear instructions. On balance, these factors support dismissal of this action under Rule 41(b). Moreover, “while pro se litigants may be entitled to some latitude when dealing with sophisticated legal issues, acknowledging their lack of formal training, there is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural requirements that a layperson can comprehend as easily as a lawyer.” Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff’s pro se status did not prevent him from complying with the Court’s Order, and Plaintiff’s pro se status does not mitigate the balancing of factors under Rule 41(b). The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT ORDER WILL ENTER. SO ORDERED: s/Clifton L. Corker United States District Judge 2 Case 4:22-cv-00017-DCLC-SKL Document 6 Filed 05/05/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 70

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.