United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER AND REASONS
S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to
prosecute. For the following reasons, the Court
grants the motion.
Theodore Jarreau asserts that he suffered injuries after
ingesting allegedly unsafe prescription drugs, including
Risperdal, Risperdal Consta, Invega, and/or
Risperidone. On July 5, 2016, plaintiff filed a
complaint against defendants Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Research & Development,
LLC, Patriot Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Breen Distribution, Inc.,
and Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC.Defendants Breen Distribution
and Vintage Pharmaceuticals have since been dismissed from
the case. The remaining defendants now move to
dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has not
responded to this motion.
Court may dismiss a claim for failure to prosecute under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the Court's
“inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue
delays in the disposition of pending cases.”
Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., 756 F.2d 399, 401
(5th Cir. 1985). The record before the Court clearly
indicates that plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case.
On April 5, 2017, the Court permitted plaintiff's
attorneys to withdraw as counsel. That same day, the Court
issued an order to show cause and ordered plaintiff to appear
personally at a hearing on April 19, 2017 to discuss his
future representation. A copy of this order was mailed to
plaintiff by certified mail, and he signed a return
receipt. The Court's order warned plaintiff
that his failure to appear could result in dismissal of the
failed to appear at the scheduled Show Cause
hearing. The Court ordered the matter to proceed
with plaintiff, in proper person. On May 11, 2017,
plaintiff failed to participate in a preliminary scheduling
conference. Plaintiff did not contact the Court to
explain his failure to appear at either the Show Cause
hearing or the preliminary conference. Further,
defendants' counsel represents that plaintiff has failed
to respond to discovery requests, failed to participate in a
discovery conference, and has not provided defendants'
counsel with current contact information.Defendants
have provided copies of their discovery requests and
certified mail receipts. Plaintiff has not responded to
defendants' motion, and has not provided any excuse for
his failure to participate in this litigation.
Court thus dismisses plaintiff's complaint for failure to
prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The
Court dismisses the complaint with prejudice because the
record demonstrates a clear record of delay caused by the
plaintiff himself rather than his attorney. See Berry v.
CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir. 1992).
Plaintiff has taken no action in this case for over six
months, and has ignored scheduled hearings and conferences
with the Court and discovery requests from defendant. The
Court further finds that lesser sanctions will not prompt
diligent prosecution. See Id. The Court previously
warned plaintiff that his failure to appear at the Show Cause
hearing could lead to dismissal of his
complaint. Plaintiff did not respond to the
Court's order or to defendants' motion to dismiss,
and appears to have no interest in continuing this
foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants' motion.
Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Orleans, Louisiana, this 28th day of December, 2017.