Malone v. Officer Lawless
1:22-cv-00265-SJD-CMV
| S.D. Ohio | Aug 16, 2022Background
- Plaintiff filed to proceed in forma pauperis and opened this action in May 2022; the Magistrate issued an R&R recommending denial of IFP and requiring payment of the $402 filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
- The District Court adopted the R&R on June 27, 2022, denied IFP, and ordered Plaintiff to pay the full $402 within 30 days, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal.
- Plaintiff filed a motion construed as a request for reconsideration on July 7, 2022; that motion was denied.
- Plaintiff did not pay the fee and did not request an extension or otherwise comply with the Court’s order.
- The Magistrate recommends dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute, applying the Sixth Circuit’s four-factor test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under Rule 41(b) is appropriate for failure to prosecute (failure to pay filing fee) | Sought IFP and moved for reconsideration; did not pay or seek extension | No opposition; court authority supports dismissal for noncompliance | Action should be dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(b) |
| Whether the Knoll/Schafer four-factor test supports dismissal | Offered no mitigating explanation for missing deadline | Court found willfulness/fault, prior warning, and no viable lesser sanction | Factors weigh in favor of dismissal; dismissal justified |
Key Cases Cited
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (recognizes court authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute)
- Knoll v. AT & T, 176 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 1999) (sets forth consideration of dismissal factors)
- Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Dep’t, 529 F.3d 731 (6th Cir. 2008) (applies the Knoll factors and notes clear record of delay justifies dismissal)
- Stough v. Mayville Cmty. Schs., 138 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 1998) (prior notice is a key consideration for dismissal)
- Steward v. Cty. of Jackson, Tenn., [citation="8 F. App'x 294"] (6th Cir. 2001) (failure to comply with court order can constitute bad faith supporting dismissal)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (failure to object to a magistrate’s report may waive de novo review)
- United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981) (same waiver principle under appellate review)