United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute (ECF No. 26). For the
following reasons, the Court will grant Defendant's
August 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a. pro se
Employment Discrimination Complaint against Defendant
Swissport Fueling Services under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e,
etseq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Missouri
Human Rights Act. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
discriminated against him on the basis of race, retaliated
against him, and subjected him to a hostile work environment.
On September 12, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiffs Motion to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and Defendant filed its Answer on
October 20, 2016. The Court set the case for a Rule 16
conference, ordering Plaintiff to meet with opposing counsel
to prepare a joint proposed scheduling plan and to appear in
Courtroom 10-South on December 20, 2016. (ECF No. 18)
Plaintiff did not appear for the Rule 16 conference or
otherwise participate in drafting the joint scheduling plan.
Court then issued a Case Management Order ("CMO")
on December 20, 2016, noting that Plaintiff failed to appear
at the Rule 16 conference in noncompliance of this
Court's Order. In addition, the CMO advised pro
se Plaintiff that he was required to follow the same
Court rules and orders as an attorney. (ECF No. 21) On
February 6, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel,
asserting that Plaintiff failed to submit Rule 26(a) Initial
Disclosures or responses to discovery requests. Defendant
further stated that Plaintiff failed to respond to all
written and telephonic attempts to resolve the disputes. (ECF
No. 22) The Court then scheduled a hearing on the Motion to
Compel and further ordered that "[b]oth parties shall
appear in person." (ECF No. 23) On the hearing date,
March 1, 2017, counsel for Defendant Swissport Fueling
Services appeared in person. Plaintiff was not present, and
counsel for Defendant orally moved to dismiss the cause of
action. (ECF No. 25) On March 2, 2017, Defendant filed the
present Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute. (ECF No.
26) After Plaintiff failed to file a timely response in
opposition, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, ordering
the Plaintiff to show cause why Defendant's motion to
dismiss should not be granted. (ECF No. 27) The Court
specified that Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, and no
later than April 12, 2017. (Id.) As of this date,
Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court's Order, and
the time for doing so has expired.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), "[i]f the
plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or
a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or
any claim against it." Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Unless the
order states otherwise, a dismissal under Rule 41(b) operates
as an adjudication on the merits. Id. "Because
dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction, it should be
employed only in cases of willful disobedience of a court
order or persistent failure to prosecute a complaint.
Devoto v. Corizon, Inc., No. 2T3CV00019 ERW, 2014 WL
294326, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 27, 2014)) (citation omitted).
"The district court need not find that the party acted
in bad faith, but only that [he] acted intentionally as
opposed to accidentally or involuntarily." Doe v.
Cassel, 403 F.3d 986, 990 (8th Cir. 2005) (citation
Court is aware of the liberal pleading standards afforded to
pro se litigants. However, in the instant case,
Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and with Orders of this Court, including
Orders to appear for hearings. In addition, Plaintiff did not
file responses to discovery requests or to Defendant's
Motion to Compel or Motion to Dismiss. Finally, the Plaintiff
has failed to show cause why the case should not be dismissed
as ordered by this Court on March 29, 2017. Indeed, Plaintiff
has taken no action in this case since filing his Complaint
seven months ago. Thus, the Court finds that dismissal with
prejudice for failure to prosecute is warranted in this case.
See Devoto, 2014 WL 294326, at *3 (dismissing
plaintiffs complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute
where the plaintiff failed to respond to discovery requests,
ignored defendant's motion to dismiss, and failed to
respond to the court's order to show cause why the motion
to dismiss should not be granted).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
for Failure to Prosecute (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED.
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Employment Discrimination
Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to
prosecute or otherwise comply with Orders of this Court. A
separate Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum
FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy
of this Order and the Order of Dismissal to Plaintiff via