United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah
TERRANCE L. LANDERS PLAINTIFF
JEFF JOHNSON DEFENDANT
B. Russell, Senior Judge.
matter is before the Court upon a motion by Defendant, Jeff
Johnson, to dismiss. (DN 26). Plaintiff, Terrance L. Landers,
has not filed a response and the time to do so has passed.
Fully briefed, Defendant’s motion is ripe for review
and for the following reasons is GRANTED.
filed this action on June 4, 2018. (DN 1). On June 29, 2018,
this Court ordered the discovery deadline to be October 18,
2018. (DN 7). Defendant sent his first set of interrogatories
and requests for production of documents to Plaintiff on
August 10, 2018. See (DN 26). On October 26, 2018,
this Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time to respond
to Defendant’s discovery requests. (DN 17). The Court
ordered Plaintiff to provide answers and produce documents in
response to Defendant’s interrogatories and request for
production of documents within thirty days of the order.
Id. These thirty days passed without a response.
March 11, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or in the
alternative for an extension of deadlines. (DN 18). The Court
granted the motion for an extension and extended the
discovery deadline to March 11, 2019 to provide Plaintiff
more time to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests.
(DN 19). The Court ordered that “Plaintiff shall
provide answers and produce documents and/or any objections
in response to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories
and Request for Production of Documents by March 11,
2019. Plaintiff is WARNED that failure to comply with this
order MAY RESULT IN A DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE.”
(DN 19) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff did not provide the
requested answers or documents by March 11, 2019.
April 12, 2019, the Court held a telephonic conference.
Plaintiff did not attend the telephonic conference. (DN 22).
Therefore, the Court set a show cause telephonic hearing for
May 9, 2019. Id. Plaintiff did not attend the show
cause hearing but later contacted the Court to explain that
he had moved to a new address and had missed the hearing
because of his work schedule. (DN 23). The Court rescheduled
the show cause hearing for May 17, 2019. Id.
Plaintiff attended the May 17 hearing and the Court scheduled
another telephonic conference for June 12, 2019. (DN 24).
states that “During the teleconference on June 12,
2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide answers and
produce documents in response to Defendant’s First Set
of Interrogatories and Request for Production within thirty
(30) days of the date of the teleconference . . . however, as
of [July 26, 2019], Plaintiff has failed to provide
either.” (DN 26). Regardless, Plaintiff has chosen not
to respond to Defendant’s motion and therefore has
waived opposition to these claims. Defendant argues that
[d]espite the Court granting Plaintiff multiple extensions,
he has failed to respond or cooperate in discovery in any
capacity. As a result, Defendant has been prejudiced in his
ability to conduct discovery and therefore, to defend this
case. Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply with
the order or any subsequent order of the Court may result in
a dismissal of the case. As a result, Plaintiff’s
complaint should be dismissed due to his non-compliance and
failure to cooperate in discovery.
Id. at 2. The Court agrees.
Court has warned Plaintiff, on more than one occasion, that
his failure to comply with Court orders could result in the
dismissal of his case. On June 29, 2018, for example, the
Court ordered that “Plaintiff is
WARNED that . . . his failure to comply with
this or any subsequent order of the Court MAY RESULT
IN A DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE.” (DN 7 at 3)
(emphasis in original). Despite the Court’s efforts to
instruct, warn, and order Plaintiff to respond to
Defendant’s discovery requests, he has failed to comply
for approximately a year.
filing this action, Plaintiff assumed the responsibility to
actively litigate his claims. Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b), a defendant may move for dismissal of an
action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to
comply with these rules or a court order.” Although
federal courts do afford pro se litigants some
leniency on matters that require legal sophistication, such
as formal pleading rules, the same policy does not support
leniency from court deadlines and other procedures readily
understood by laypersons, particularly where there is a
pattern of delay or failure to pursue a case. See Jourdan
v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991). “[T]he
lenient treatment of pro se litigants has limits. Where, for
example, a pro se litigant fails to comply with an easily
understood court-imposed deadline, there is no basis for
treating that party more generously than a represented
litigant.” Pilgram v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d
413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Jourdan, 951 F.2d
review, the Court finds that Plaintiff s repeated failures to
participate in this litigation and his failure to comply with
the Court’s orders warrant dismissal under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(b). ...