Rucker v. Swensen, 1:15-cv-00054

Pro se plaintiff Gary W. Rucker sued police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging unlawful stop/arrest and excessive force.
Case filed April 2015; service delayed; multiple discovery deadline extensions due largely to difficulties communicating with Rucker while incarcerated.
Court ordered Rucker to respond to outstanding discovery by March 24, 2021; his responses were late and incomplete; court permitted a limited additional deposition and warned dismissal could follow.
Rucker was paroled summer 2021 but failed to update his address, failed to appear for a scheduled deposition, and did not respond to defendants’ dispositive motion (filed Dec. 13, 2021) or the court’s show-cause order.
Magistrate Judge Oberg recommended granting defendants’ dispositive motion in part and dismissing the action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Qualified immunity / summary judgment	Rucker maintains constitutional violations (unlawful stop/arrest, excessive force)	Defendants assert qualified immunity and sought summary judgment	Court did not resolve qualified immunity; dismissed case under Rule 41(b) instead
Dismissal for failure to prosecute (Rule 41(b))	Rucker (pro se, formerly incarcerated) sought leniency and had earlier partial engagement	Defendants argued Rucker repeatedly failed to comply with discovery, failed to update address, failed to appear, and stalled litigation	Court found repeated noncompliance, prejudice, prior warnings, and recommended dismissal under Rule 41(b)
Dismissal as discovery sanction (Rule 37)	Rucker had eventually produced partial responses and previously sat for a deposition	Defendants sought dismissal under Rule 37 for failure to comply with discovery orders	Court earlier denied extreme Rule 37 sanction, imposed lesser sanctions; ultimately recommended dismissal under Rule 41(b) rather than as a direct Rule 37 sanction
Adequacy of lesser sanctions	Rucker expected leniency given pro se status and incarceration history	Defendants argued prior lesser sanctions failed and further sanctions unlikely to work	Court concluded lesser sanctions were ineffective and dismissal was warranted

Mobley v. McCormick, 40 F.3d 337 (10th Cir. 1994) (factors to consider when dismissing for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders)
Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916 (10th Cir. 1992) (framework for assessing dismissal as a sanction)
Meeker v. Rizley, 324 F.2d 269 (10th Cir. 1963) (dismissal with prejudice is a harsh sanction to be used only in extreme cases)
Garrett v. Selby, Connor, Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (pro se litigants remain subject to the same procedural rules as other litigants)