Agee v. Franklin County Correctional Facility
2:19-cv-04961
| S.D. Ohio | Dec 4, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Patrick W. Agee, Jr. filed an in forma pauperis application on November 8, 2019 but did not file a Complaint.
- The Court issued an Order and Notice of Deficiency on November 13, 2019 directing Agee to file a Complaint within 14 days (by November 27) and warning that failure to comply would lead to removal from the active docket without assessing a filing fee.
- Plaintiff did not file the Complaint and did not respond; mail to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable.
- The Magistrate emphasized a pro se plaintiff's duty to notify the Court of an address change and cited authority that procedural requirements must be followed.
- Applying the Sixth Circuit’s four-factor test for Rule 41(b) dismissals, the Magistrate found Agee’s failure to comply constituted bad faith/contumacious conduct and that no lesser sanction would preserve the integrity of the pretrial process.
- The Magistrate recommended dismissal under Rule 41(b) without prejudice, declined to assess the filing fee, and advised that Agee should list this action as related if he re-files; procedures for objections to the R&R were explained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under Rule 41(b) is warranted for failure to prosecute/comply with court order | No responsive filings; no argument presented | No argument presented | Recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) due to missed deadline, returned mail, and failure to notify address change |
| Whether dismissal should be with prejudice and whether the filing fee should be assessed | No argument presented | No argument presented | Recommended dismissal without prejudice and that the filing fee not be assessed; dismissal with prejudice deemed too harsh |
Key Cases Cited
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (recognizes district court authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute)
- Knoll v. AT&T, 176 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 1999) (docket-management justification for dismissal)
- Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Dep’t, 529 F.3d 731 (6th Cir. 2008) (articulates four-factor test for Rule 41(b) dismissals)
- Stough v. Mayville Cmty. Schs., 138 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 1998) (prior notice is a key consideration for dismissal)
- Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108 (6th Cir. 1991) (pro se litigants must comply with straightforward procedural requirements)
- Steward v. County of Jackson, Tenn., [citation="8 F. App'x 294"] (6th Cir. 2001) (failure to comply with court order can justify dismissal)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (failure to object to a magistrate judge's report waives de novo review)
- United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981) (same waiver principle regarding objections to magistrate reports)