John Carpenter v. City of Flint
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15102
6th Cir.2013Background
- Carpenter, former Director of Transportation for City of Flint, sued Flint, Mayor Dayne Walling, and Councilwoman Jackie Poplar in state court for discrimination and related state-law claims; defendants removed to federal court.
- Defendants moved for a more definite statement and to strike; the district court set deadlines; Carpenter’s counsel missed deadlines and repeatedly filed noncompliant paper filings in violation of the Eastern District of Michigan local rules.
- The parties entered a stipulated order allowing an amended complaint; Carpenter’s counsel manually filed an amended complaint and received notices of failure to comply; defendants renewed a motion to strike; Carpenter failed to timely respond, prompting show-cause orders.
- The district court denied defendants’ renewed motion to strike for lack of specificity; there was then a 5½ month period of docket inactivity while parties attempted (and failed) to finalize a stipulation to file a second amended complaint.
- The district court issued a final order to show cause and then dismissed Carpenter’s complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute, citing counsel’s repeated rule violations, uncooperativeness, and inactivity; Carpenter appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute was appropriate | Dismissal was an abuse of discretion because delays and rule violations were counsel’s, not contumacious, and lesser sanctions were available | Dismissal was justified by repeated noncompliance with local rules, failure to respond timely, and prolonged docket inactivity | Reversed: dismissal with prejudice was an abuse of discretion; case remanded |
| Whether counsel’s conduct rose to willfulness, bad faith, or contumacious conduct | Counsel’s missed filings and delays were negligent or technical, not intentionally obstructive | Counsel’s repeated noncompliance and failure to advance the case evidenced culpable fault | Court: conduct was improper but did not show the degree of contumacious conduct needed for dismissal with prejudice |
| Whether defendants were prejudiced by plaintiff’s delay | Carpenter: defendants showed no specific evidence of prejudice from the delays | Flint: delays impair defense (lost evidence/witness memory) and wasted resources | Court: no specific, competent evidence of prejudice; defendants had made only minimal responsive efforts |
| Whether lesser sanctions were considered or adequate notice given | Carpenter: earlier show-cause orders and notices did not sufficiently warn that dismissal was imminent; lesser sanctions should have been used | Defendants: court warnings and counsel’s repeated infractions justified extreme sanction | Court: warnings existed but were not specific enough in earlier instances; the district court failed to impose lesser sanctions before dismissal; thus dismissal was disproportionate |
Key Cases Cited
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (Sup. Ct. 1962) (district courts may dismiss for failure to prosecute; sanctions may fall on client for counsel’s conduct)
- Mulbah v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 261 F.3d 586 (6th Cir. 2001) (four-factor test for dismissal and emphasis on sanctioning counsel over dismissing client)
- Tung-Hsiung Wu v. T.W. Wang, Inc., 420 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 2005) (discussion of dismissal standard and need to consider lesser sanctions)
- Patterson v. Twp. of Grand Blanc, 760 F.2d 686 (6th Cir. 1985) (reversing dismissal where plaintiff penalized for attorney’s procedural failures)
- Carter v. City of Memphis, 636 F.2d 159 (6th Cir. 1980) (dismissal inappropriate where neglect is solely attorney’s fault)
- Stough v. Mayville Cmty. Sch., 138 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 1998) (abuse of discretion standard and limits on dismissal for mere failure to file documents)