Doest v. Core Civic et al, No. 3:2023cv00139 - Document 5 (E.D. Tenn. 2023)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION, Plaintiff will be ASSESSED1 the filing fee of $402.00, and this action will be DISMISSED. Judgment Order to follow. Signed by District Judge Charles E. Atchley, Jr. on 6/13/23. (c/m Aaron Doest 627365 TROUSDALE TURNER CORRECTIONAL CENTER 140 MACON WAY HARTSVILLE, TN 37074 and custodian of inmate accounts) (ADA)

Download PDF

Doest v. Core Civic et al Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE AARON DOEST, Plaintiff, v. CORE CIVIC, UNIT MANAGER CHERRY, OFFICER BALDWIN, and INMATE GOODWIN, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:23-cv-139 Judge Atchley Magistrate Judge McCook MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a prisoner in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, filed a motion seeking to proceed in forma pauperis in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 [See Docs. 1, 2]. Finding that the motion was not properly supported, the Court entered an Order on May 4, 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. 4]. 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 3:23-cv-00139-CEA-JEM Document 5 Filed 06/13/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 15 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 Defendants, as they have not yet been served. 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. 4 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. The Clerk will be DIRECTED to provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and the accompanying Order to the Court’s financial deputy and Plaintiff’s custodian. This Order “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). 1 2 Case 3:23-cv-00139-CEA-JEM Document 5 Filed 06/13/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 16 shall be placed in Plaintiff’s institutional file and follow him if he is transferred to another correctional facility. 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. /s Charles E. Atchley, Jr. CHARLES E. ATCHLEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 Case 3:23-cv-00139-CEA-JEM Document 5 Filed 06/13/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 17

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.