UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KERA E. HILL and RIHANNA

M. TURNER,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 15-11378

v.

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR SANCTIONS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Before the court is Defendant Ronald Dupuis’s motion for sanctions, filed

February 17, 2016. After Plaintiffs failed to file a response, the court issued an

order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as a result of Plaintiffs’

failure to cooperate in discovery or prosecute this action. Plaintiffs submitted a

response to the order to show cause on March 18, 2016. Defendant filed a reply

brief on March 23, 2016. 

Defendant contends that he has diligently pursued discovery in this matter,

beginning with the service of interrogatories and document requests on May 19,

2015. Plaintiffs did not respond to Defendant’s discovery requests. Defendant

5:15-cv-11378-JCO-EAS Doc # 31 Filed 06/01/16 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 264
also scheduled Plaintiffs’ depositions in July, September, October, and December

2015. Each time, the depositions were cancelled because Plaintiffs were

unavailable. 

On December 22, 2015, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Robert Morris filed a motion to

withdraw. The court granted the motion in January 8, 2016, and allowed Plaintiffs

30 days to obtain a new attorney. Plaintiffs did not obtain new counsel within 30

days or at any time thereafter. 

Defendant filed a motion for sanctions on February 17, 2016, arguing that

this action should be dismissed as a result of Plaintiffs’ failure to cooperate in

discovery, obtain an attorney, or otherwise prosecute this case. The court issued a

notice that Plaintiffs’ response was due March 7, 2016. When Plaintiffs failed to

file a timely response, the court issued an order to show cause, warning that it was

considering dismissing the action with prejudice. 

Plaintiff Kera Hill submitted response to the order to show cause on March

18, 2016, stating that “due to the misguidance of our former counsel . . . we were

never made aware of those dates that we missed.” However, Plaintiffs attached an

email from their attorney dated November 26, 2015, indicating that “I have to get

responses to these interrogatories to the defense attorney by mid next week or they

will file a motion to throw the case out.” Despite this warning from their counsel,

-2-

5:15-cv-11378-JCO-EAS Doc # 31 Filed 06/01/16 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 265
Plaintiffs have done nothing whatsoever to answer Defendant’s discovery requests

or otherwise cooperate with discovery. In addition, in the five months since their

attorney was permitted to withdraw, Plaintiffs have taken no steps to prosecute this

matter on their own behalf or to obtain new counsel.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 and Local Rule 41.2, the

court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute. In determining whether to

dismiss for failure to prosecute, the court considers the following factors: “(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 of

the action.” Mulbah v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 261 F.3d 586, 589 (6th Cir. 2001)

“While none of these factors is dispositive, a case may be dismissed by a district

court where there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct on the part of

the plaintiff.” Id. at 591.

Here, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a “reckless disregard of the effect of

[their] conduct” on these proceedings, satisfying the first factor. See id. Plaintiffs

have made no effort to participate in discovery or otherwise prosecute this case. It

is clear from the record that fault lies with Plaintiffs themselves, who were

-3-

5:15-cv-11378-JCO-EAS Doc # 31 Filed 06/01/16 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 266
informed by their former counsel in November 2015 that they needed to answer

Defendant’s discovery requests or Defendant would “file a motion to throw the

case out.” Plaintiffs have been given ample time to either prosecute this action

themselves or to obtain counsel. They have done neither.

Regarding the second factor, Defendant has been prejudiced by Plaintiff’s

conduct, in that he has wasted “time, money, and effort in pursuit of cooperation

which [Plaintiffs were] legally obligated to provide.” Harmon v. CSX Transp.,

Inc., 110 F.3d 364, 368 (6th Cir. 1997). 

As for the third factor, Plaintiffs were on notice that the court was

contemplating dismissal, given Defendant’s motion (to which Plaintiffs failed to

respond) and the court’s show cause order.

As for the fourth factor, the court has considered less drastic sanctions than

dismissal, such as monetary sanctions. In light of Plaintiffs’ clear pattern of delay

and virtual abandonment of this case, however, it does not appear to the court that

less drastic sanctions would serve to protect the integrity of the judicial process. 

See Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991) (“Although this court

prefers that claims be adjudicated on their merits, dismissal is appropriate when a

pro se litigant has engaged in a clear pattern of delay.”). 

-4-

5:15-cv-11378-JCO-EAS Doc # 31 Filed 06/01/16 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 267
ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for

sanction is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: June 1, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the

parties of record on this date, June 1, 2016, using the ECF system and/or ordinary

mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

-5-

5:15-cv-11378-JCO-EAS Doc # 31 Filed 06/01/16 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 268