Kyle et al v. Garrett, No. 1:2023cv00171 - Document 16 (E.D. Tenn. 2023)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Accordingly, Plaintiff will be ASSESSED the filing fee of $402.00, and this action will be DISMISSED. All pending motions will be DENIED as moot. The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would no t be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. An Appropriate Judgment Order Will Enter. Signed by District Judge Curtis L Collier on 10/4/2023. (AML) Emailed to Court Financial Deputy and Mailed to Lowell H. Kyle, Sr. and Walker County GA Jail Inmate Account Manager

Download PDF

Kyle et al v. Garrett Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA LOWELL H. KYLE, SR, Plaintiff, v. HAMILTON COUNTY SHERIFF AUSTIN GARRETT, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No.: 1:23-CV-171-CLC-SKL MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to proceed in forma pauperis in this pro se prisoner’s civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. (See Doc. 11.) Finding that the motion was not properly supported, the Court entered an Order on August 22, 2023, providing Plaintiff thirty (30) days within which to submit a certified copy of his inmate trust account for the previous six-month period. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s Order, and the time for doing so has passed. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the Court may dismiss a case for a failure of the plaintiff “to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 362-63 (6th Cir. 1999); see also Rogers v. City of Warren, 302 F. App’x 371, 375 n.4 (6th Cir. 2008) (“Although Rule 41(b) does not expressly provide for a sua sponte dismissal (the rule actually provides for dismissal on defendant’s motion), it is well-settled that the district court can enter a sue sponte order of dismissal under Rule 41(b).” (citing Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962))). The Court examines four factors when considering dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b): Case 1:23-cv-00171-CLC-SKL Document 16 Filed 10/04/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 55 Dockets.Justia.com (1) whether the party’s failure is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether the adversary was prejudiced by the dismissed party’s conduct; (3) whether the dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and (4) whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal was ordered. Wu v. T.W. Wang, Inc., 420 F.3d 641, 643 (6th Cir. 2005). First, Plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with the Court’s Order was due to Plaintiff’s willfulness or fault. Plaintiff has chosen not to comply with, or even respond to, the Court’s Order. Second, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order has not prejudiced Defendant, as process has not issued in this case. Third, the Court’s Order expressly warned Plaintiff that a failure to timely submit a certified copy of his inmate trust account would result in the dismissal of this action (Doc. 13 p. 2.) Finally, the Court concludes that alternative sanctions are not warranted, as Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s clear instructions. On balance, these factors support dismissal of this action under Rule 41(b). Moreover, “while pro se litigants may be entitled to some latitude when dealing with sophisticated legal issues, acknowledging their lack of formal training, there is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward procedural requirements that a layperson can comprehend as easily as a lawyer.” Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff’s pro se status did not prevent him from complying with the Court’s Order, and Plaintiff’s pro se status does not mitigate the balancing of factors under Rule 41(b). Accordingly, Plaintiff will be ASSESSED1 the filing fee of $402.00, and this action will be DISMISSED. All pending motions will be DENIED as moot. 1 “Section 1915(b)(1) compels the payment of the [filing] fees at the moment the complaint . . . is filed.” McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 607 (6th Cir. 1997). 2 Case 1:23-cv-00171-CLC-SKL Document 16 Filed 10/04/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 56 The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT ORDER WILL ENTER. SO ORDERED. ENTER: /s/ CURTIS L. COLLIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 Case 1:23-cv-00171-CLC-SKL Document 16 Filed 10/04/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 57

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.