Court Opinion

ID: 2963737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:28.047413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:45.257422
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        December 7, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1521

                                BENJAMIN HOOVER, JR.,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

               SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                        FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Cyr and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Benjamin Hoover, Jr. on brief pro se.
            ____________________
            Michael L. Rosen, Paul V. Lyons, and Foley, Hoag & Eliot on  brief
            ________________  _____________      ___________________
        for appellees.  

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.    The  district court  dismissed  Benjamin
                 ___________

            Hoover's 42 U.S.C.    1981 suit for his counsel's  failure to

            attend  a status conference.  Hoover now appeals.  We affirm.

                 After  Hoover's case  had been  pending for  nearly four

            months, the  court issued a notice  advising Hoover's counsel

            that it would hold a status conference in two weeks.  Counsel

            asserts  that she did not receive this notice, but, five days

            before the  conference was  to take  place,  Hoover told  her

            about  it.   Counsel then  called a  district court  clerk to

            reschedule the  conference.    After  discussion,  the  clerk

            declined  to reschedule,  warning  counsel  that  failure  to

            attend the conference would result in dismissal of the  case.

            Several hours  before the conference was  held, counsel moved

            for a continuance, which was denied.  She did not  attend the

            conference.   Her motion  advanced only one  colorable reason

            for not attending.   It averred that the date "was  a problem

            with  regard to other matters I had scheduled for that date."

            Concluding, apparently,  that counsel had no  good reason for

            failing to appear, the court dismissed the action.  

                 Our cases make clear that a district court may dismiss a

            case with prejudice if plaintiff or counsel has willfully  or

            unjustifiably disobeyed  a court  order.  Compare  Barreto v.
                                                      _______  _______

            Citibank, N.A., 907 F.2d 15, 16 (1st Cir. 1990), and Goldman,
            ______________                                   ___ ________

            Antonetti,   Ferraiuoli,   Axtmayer  &   Hertell   v.  Medfit
            ________________________________________________       ______

                                         -2-

            International, Inc., 982 F.2d 686, 692  (1st Cir. 1993), with
            ___________________                                      ____

            Velazquez-Rivera  v. Sea-Land Service,  Inc., 920  F.2d 1072,
            ________________     _______________________

            1076-77  (1st Cir.  1990) and  Benjamin v.  Aroostook Medical
                                      ___  ________     _________________

            Center, Inc., 57 F.3d 101, 108 (1st Cir. 1995).  Hoover bears
            ____________

            the burden  of establishing the  requisite excuse or  lack of

            willfulness.   Taylor v. Medtronics, Inc.,  861 F.2d 980, 987
                           ______    ________________

            (6th Cir. 1988); Adkins v. United States, 816 F.2d 1580, 1582
                             ______    _____________

            (Fed.  Cir.  1987) (dismissals  for  failure  to comply  with

            discovery orders).  Counsel  has offered no valid explanation

            for  her failure to attend the conference, and so we conclude

            that dismissal was not an abuse of discretion.  

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.  
                 _____________________________________

                                         -3-