Opinion
Civil Action 2:12-cv-174
01-29-2015
CHANCE CATUDAL, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL L. STURGILL, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
For the reasons that follow, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
I.
On November 4, 2013, the Court stayed this action pending resolution of Plaintiff's state-court criminal action. (ECF No. 77.) In that November 13, 2013 Order, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a written status report within fourteen days following resolution of his state-court criminal case and explicitly advised him that "failure to timely file a status report may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute." (Id.) In an April 28, 2014 Order, the Court again reminded Plaintiff that he was directed to file a written status report within fourteen days following resolution of his state-court criminal case and again explicitly advised him that "failure to timely file a status report may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute." (ECF No. 80.)
On October 21, 2014, Defendants moved to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(c) and also on the grounds that Plaintiff had failed to prosecute this action. (ECF No. 81.) Defendants attached exhibits to their Motion reflecting that Plaintiff's state-court criminal matter has been completed for more than six months. (See ECF Nos. 81-1, 81-2, 81-3, and 81-4.)
On December 8, 2014, in light of Plaintiffs' failure to comply with this Court's November 4, 2013 and April 28, 2014 Orders to file a written status report and also his failure to oppose or otherwise respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice for want of prosecution. (ECF No. 82.)
On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed his response to the Show Cause Order, representing that he had appealed his state-court criminal matter to the Ohio Supreme Court and that contrary to Defendants' representation, his appeal is still pending. (ECF No. 83.) Defendants filed a Response in Opposition and attached documentation that appears to refute Plaintiff's representations that his state-court criminal matter is still pending on appeal. (ECF No. 84.) Defendants further pointed out that Plaintiff had failed to supply the Court with a case number from the Ohio Supreme Court or any other evidence reflecting that his appeal his currently pending.
On January 6, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to supplement his Response the Court's December 8, 2014 Show Cause Order with evidence reflecting that his state-court criminal matter is currently pending. The Court set January 20, 2015 as the deadline by which Plaintiff had to respond and explicitly advised him that "failure to timely comply with this Order will result in dismissal with prejudice for want of prosecution." (ECF No. 85 at 2.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's January 6, 2015 Order.
II.
The Court's inherent authority to dismiss a plaintiff's action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute is expressly recognized in Rule 41(b), which provides in pertinent part: "If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) . . . operates as an adjudication on the merits." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Walbash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). "This measure is available to the district court as a tool to effect management of its docket and avoidance of unnecessary burdens on the tax-supported courts and opposing parties." Knoll v. AT & T, 176 F.3d 359, 63 (6th Cir. 1999).
The Sixth Circuit directs district courts to consider the following four factors in deciding whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute 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.Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Dept., 529 F.3d 731, 737 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Knoll, 176 F.3d at 363). "'Although typically none of the factors is outcome dispositive, . . . a case is properly dismissed by the district court where there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct.'" Schafer, 529 F.3d at 737 (quoting Knoll, 176 F.3d at 363).
III.
Under the circumstances presented in the instant case, the Court finds that dismissal of Plaintiff's action pursuant to Rule 41(b) is warranted. Here, the record amply demonstrates a record of delay and contumacious conduct. Indeed, Plaintiff's failure to timely comply with Court Orders resulted in Defendants moving to dismiss for failure to prosecute and prompted the Court to put on a show cause order. And although Plaintiff timely responded to the Show Cause Order, his response was deficient. Consistent with his previous failures, Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the Court's order to supplement his Response. In addition, the Court has repeatedly provided Plaintiff with adequate notice of the Court's intention to dismiss for failure to prosecute should he fail to timely comply with the Court's Orders. (See ECF Nos. 77 and 80 (advising Plaintiff that failure to timely comply may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute); and ECF No. 85 (advising Plaintiff that failure to timely comply "will result in dismissal for with prejudice for want of prosecution".) Moreover, the Court has provided Plaintiff with a reasonable time to comply with its Orders, most recently allowing Plaintiff two weeks to supplement his response to the December 8, 2014 Show Cause Order. (ECF No. 85.) Because Plaintiff has missed deadlines and disregarded Court orders, the Court concludes that no alternative sanction would protect the integrity of the pretrial process. This action is therefore DISMISSED under Rule 41(b).
IV.
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: January 29, 2015
/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
United States Magistrate Judge