Bryant v. Warden, Franklin County Corrections Center II
2:17-cv-00335
S.D. OhioDec 4, 2017Background
- Petitioner Shaun Bryant, an Ohio inmate, filed a pro se habeas-like civil petition (Apr. 19, 2017) alleging a Franklin County Municipal Court due-process violation for denying his motion to withdraw a no-contest plea; the petition lacked case-identifying and sentence details.
- The court ordered Bryant (Oct. 23, 2017) to provide additional case information; mail to his last known address at Franklin County Corrections Center was returned as undeliverable.
- The court issued a second order (Nov. 9, 2017) directing Bryant to provide a current address and warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute; that order also was returned as undeliverable.
- Bryant did not supply a current address or the requested Municipal Court details, leaving the court unable to contact him or advance the case.
- The magistrate judge applied the four-factor dismissal test under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and recommended sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under Rule 41(b) is appropriate for failure to update address and prosecute | Bryant did not provide arguments after the court-ordered direction; implicitly, he sought adjudication of his due-process claim | Respondent (via court) argued dismissal is warranted because Bryant failed to keep the court informed and ignored orders, stalling the case | Dismissal recommended under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute — Bryant’s failure to update address deemed willful/reckless and no lesser sanction practical |
| Whether plaintiff’s conduct evidences willfulness, bad faith, or fault | N/A (no response) | Court characterized petitioner’s failure to provide contact info as reckless disregard for proceedings | Court found willfulness/fault satisfied |
| Whether respondent was prejudiced by delay | N/A | Court noted potential prejudice but found record neutral on prejudice at this time | Prejudice factor neutral |
| Whether warnings/lesser sanctions foreclosed dismissal | Bryant received no effective response since orders were returned undeliverable | Court issued explicit warning that failure to update address would lead to dismissal; other sanctions impracticable because court cannot contact Bryant | Warning satisfied; no lesser sanction feasible; supports dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Wu v. T.W. Tang, Inc., 420 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 2005) (willfulness/bad faith requires intent to thwart proceedings or reckless disregard)
- Stough v. Mayville Comty. Schs., 138 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 1998) (four-factor test for dismissal under Rule 41(b))
- Buck v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Farmers Home Admin., 960 F.2d 603 (6th Cir. 1992) (failure to supply basic information justifies dismissal)
- Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108 (6th Cir. 1991) (pro se litigants must comply with straightforward procedural requirements)
- Pfahler v. Natl Latex Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816 (6th Cir. 2007) (failure to object to magistrate judge’s report waives de novo review and appeal)
- United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976 (6th Cir. 2005) (same waiver principle for failure to timely object)
- Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981 (6th Cir. 2007) (general objections to a magistrate judge’s report do not preserve issues for appeal)
- Hardin v. Chandler, 36 Fed. App’x 769 (6th Cir. 2002) (pro se litigants afforded latitude but must meet basic procedural duties)