Edwards v. Seterus Inc
3:17-cv-00705
N.D. Tex.Mar 30, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Tiffany Edwards, proceeding pro se, sued Seterus, Inc.; the case was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial management.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment on October 20, 2017; Edwards failed to file a timely response by the local-rule deadline.
- The court extended a response deadline to December 18, 2017 and warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal; Edwards still did not respond.
- Edwards repeatedly failed to comply with court rules and orders: she did not register for CM/ECF despite an order, failed to submit a scheduling proposal, and failed to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests.
- Defendant’s motion to compel was granted as unopposed, yet Edwards nevertheless did not comply with the resulting discovery order; the magistrate found the delays attributable to Edwards and willful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to follow court orders is warranted under Rule 41(b) | Edwards did not present a response or defenses on the record (no active argument presented) | Seterus argued dismissal was appropriate due to failure to respond to summary judgment, discovery, and court orders | Case should be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court orders |
| Whether lesser sanctions suffice in light of plaintiff’s conduct | No mitigation shown on record | Seterus implicitly contended that dismissal is appropriate given repeated noncompliance | Magistrate found lesser sanctions inadequate given willful, contumacious conduct |
| Whether delay was attributable to plaintiff rather than counsel | N/A (pro se plaintiff made no filings) | Seterus relied on absence of any filings by Edwards for over a year | Court found delay solely attributable to Edwards |
| Whether procedural requirements (CM/ECF registration, discovery responses, scheduling proposal) were adequately complied with | Edwards failed to comply, no justification on record | Seterus emphasized repeated noncompliance and prejudice from delay | Court found repeated failures to follow rules and orders and treated them as willful misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126 (5th Cir. 1988) (Rule 41(b) permits sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute)
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (courts have inherent authority to control docket and dismiss for unreasonable delay)
- Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188 (5th Cir. 1992) (dismissal with prejudice appropriate where clear record of delay or contumacious conduct and lesser sanctions would not suffice)
- Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (procedural rules on objections to magistrate judges’ reports and extension of objection period)