Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_04-cv-06060/USCOURTS-arwd-6_04-cv-06060-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

LARRY GLEGHORN PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 04-6060

DON MELTON, ARKANSAS STATE POLICE DIRECTOR,

IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY;

THOMAS MARS, FORMER ARKANSAS STATE POLICE DIRECTOR;

FRANK GWEN, CHAIRMAN OF THE ARKANSAS STATE POLICE 

BOARD; AND ARKANSAS STATE POLICE DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Now on this 3rd day of November 2006, there comes on for

consideration the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with

Court Order (Doc. 35) filed by Defendants on September 8, 2006 and

supporting brief (Doc. 36). Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s

Response (Doc. 37). 

On April 1, 2005, Defendants filed a motion to compel

discovery. (Doc. 10). Plaintiff did not file a response. On

April 15, 2005, the Honorable Bobby E. Shepherd granted Defendants’

motion ordering Plaintiff to answer Defendants’ interrogatories and

requests for production of documents within ten (10) days. (Doc.

13). 

On June 30, 2005, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc.

14) alleging Plaintiff failed to comply with Judge Shepherd’s

order. Plaintiff failed to timely respond to this motion, and on

July 19, 2005, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion and dismissed

Plaintiff’s case for failure to prosecute and to comply with Court

orders but stating it would reconsider the ruling if Plaintiff

Case 6:04-cv-06060-RTD Document 38 Filed 11/03/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Page 2 of 3

filed a response to the motion to dismiss within seven days showing

good and adequate cause for failing to prosecute the action and to

comply with Judge Shepherd’s order. (Doc. 17). That same day,

Plaintiff filed his untimely response to Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss contending he had complied with the Court’s order. (Doc.

18). Defendants replied on July 25, 2005 (Doc. 19) stating that

Plaintiff had not yet produced all of the requested discovery. On

July 28, 2005, this Court determined Plaintiff’s response failed to

establish any reason why the case should not be dismissed for

failure to prosecute and upheld the dismissal. (Doc. 20).

On August 11, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter or Amend

Judgment (Doc. 21) stating he had complied with the Court’s order

and was diligently pursuing his case. Plaintiff further argued he

should not be punished for the acts or omissions of his attorneys

but the more appropriate remedy would be to sanction Plaintiff’s

counsel. This Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion on August 15, 2005

(Doc. 23), and Plaintiff appealed the dismissal (Doc. 24) on August

29, 2005. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and

remanded the case on August 9, 2006 finding that sanctions were

warranted but that the Court must consider lesser sanctions and

make a finding that Plaintiff acted willfully and in bad faith

before dismissal would be an appropriate sanction. (Doc. 31). 

Defendants move the Court to make more specific findings with

respect to the willful nature of Plaintiff’s violation of orders of

Case 6:04-cv-06060-RTD Document 38 Filed 11/03/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Page 3 of 3

this Court or, alternatively to require Plaintiff to show good and

adequate cause for his failure to prosecute his case and to comply

with the Court’s order compelling Plaintiff to respond to

Defendants’ interrogatories and requests for production of

documents (Doc. 13). Plaintiff contends that dismissal is too

harsh a sanction and that his failure to comply with this Court’s

order to provide discovery was not willful.

The Defendants’ Motion is DENIED without prejudice to renew it

at a later date. The Court will consider at trial imposing

monetary sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel, and if any

outstanding discovery is not promptly provided, the Court will

again consider dismissal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of November 2006.

/s/ Robert T. Dawson 

Honorable Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge

Case 6:04-cv-06060-RTD Document 38 Filed 11/03/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>