Wiley v. United States of America
2:21-cv-00125-LGW-BWC
| S.D. Ga. | Jul 1, 2022Background:
- Plaintiff Sean T. Wiley filed suit under Bivens and the FTCA against the United States, a correctional officer, and two doctors; the Court ordered service in February 2022.
- Defendants moved to dismiss (filed May 9, 2022), asserting failure to exhaust administrative remedies, failure to state a claim, qualified immunity for the individual defendants, and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over some FTCA claims.
- The Court issued orders on May 10 and May 31, 2022 directing Wiley to respond within 14 days and warning that failure to respond could lead to dismissal; Wiley did not file a substantive response (he notified the Court of an impending transfer).
- The Magistrate Judge found no indication the orders or motion failed to reach Wiley and concluded Wiley had ample opportunity and warning.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended the Court grant defendants’ motion as unopposed, dismiss Wiley’s complaint without prejudice for failure to follow court orders, direct the Clerk to close the case, and deny leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
- The recommendation explained dismissal without prejudice is appropriate (less severe than dismissal with prejudice) and held an appeal in forma pauperis should be denied because no non-frivolous issues remain.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether case should be dismissed for failure to follow court orders/prosecute | Wiley did not substantively respond; noted a transfer but gave no objection to dismissal | Defendants moved to dismiss and proceeded on merits; non-response supports granting motion as unopposed | Magistrate: grant as unopposed; dismiss without prejudice for failure to follow orders |
| Whether dismissal should be with prejudice | No argument for preserving claims | Defendants sought dismissal; severity not pressed as sanction | Court: dismiss without prejudice (less severe sanction appropriate) |
| Whether plaintiff may appeal in forma pauperis | No timely filings asserting appealability or meritorious issues | Defendants implicitly contend appeal would not be in good faith | Magistrate: deny IFP on appeal — no non-frivolous issues to raise |
| Whether plaintiff received fair notice and opportunity to respond | Wiley said he was being transferred (possible implied excuse) | Court records show orders and motion were sent; plaintiff warned of consequences | Magistrate: procedure fair; R&R provides opportunity to object before de novo district judge review |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized a damages action against federal officers for constitutional violations)
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (trial courts may dismiss for failure to prosecute, even without prior notice)
- Morewitz v. West of Eng. Ship Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass'n (Lux.), 62 F.3d 1356 (11th Cir. 1995) (standards for dismissal with prejudice; extreme sanction requires clear record of delay and finding lesser sanctions insufficient)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (defines frivolous claims as clearly baseless factual allegations or indisputably meritless legal theories)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (good-faith requirement for appeals in forma pauperis)
- Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S., 631 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2011) (a district court must employ fair procedure before dismissing sua sponte)
- Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189 (11th Cir. 1993) (Rule 41 supports involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute)