Michael Shavers v. David Bergh, 516 F. App'x 568

Shavers, a pro se Michigan prisoner, filed a 2007 §1983 complaint against Bergh, Rapelje, Stasewich, and Enterline alleging excessive force and lack of protection.
District court dismissed claims against Bergh and Rapelje and granted summary judgment for Stasewich and Enterline; we later reversed and remanded.
On remand, trial was slated for May 21, 2012; a medical-continuance was granted to June 11, 2012.
At the final pre-trial, Shavers sought another continuance for medical reasons; the district court denied it.
On June 11, 2012, the day of trial, Shavers again sought a continuance; the court denied it and dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Shavers appealed and moved for expedited consideration; the court addressed Rule 41(b) dismissal and related issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) was proper	Shavers argues lack of explicit authority for dismissal.	Court relied on Rule 41(b) and pretrial record showing delay/good discretion.	Yes; dismissal affirmed as proper.
Whether the district court abused its discretion under Rule 41(b) standards	Shavers contends abuse due to lack of warning and medical justification.	Record shows willfulness/bad faith and prejudice to defendants; proper discretion exercised.	No abuse; district court acted within reason.
Whether notice before dismissal was required or controlling	Shavers argues failure to warn undermines validity.	Dismissal may occur without prior warning; notice is a key consideration but not mandatory here.	Not controlling; notice not required where other factors show fault.
Whether district court properly denied appointment of counsel	Shavers contends counsel should have been appointed given complexity.	Case presented non-complex issues and Shavers managed proceedings pro se.	Yes; appointment of counsel not required.
Whether denial of free transcripts on appeal was proper given forma pauperis status	Shavers sought free transcripts; district court denied based on lack of certification.	Although pauper status granted, no certification of non-frivolous appeal	Properly denied; transcripts not provided without certification.

Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (dismissal for failure to prosecute; requires consideration of factors)
Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Dep’t, 529 F.3d 731 (6th Cir. 2008) (factors for Rule 41(b) dismissal; harsh sanction when delay/contumacy)
Carver v. Bunch, 946 F.2d 451 (6th Cir. 1991) (dismissal as appropriate for conduct causing delay)
Knoll v. Amer. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 1999) (sanctions and diligence in prosecution; support for dismissal in extreme cases)
Harris v. Callwood, 844 F.2d 1254 (6th Cir. 1988) (warning requirement and proportional punishment considerations)
Harmon, 110 F.3d 368 (6th Cir. 1997) (lesser sanctions not required to be articulated; discretion in sanction choice)