United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RULING AND ORDER
BRIAN
A. JACKSON CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
Because
of Plaintiffs unruliness and refusal to comply with the
Court's repeated orders, the above-captioned matter is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff,
Eric McCall, brought this action pro se alleging that on July
15, 2014, Troy Poret and William Butler used excessive force
against Plaintiff in retaliation for filing a previous
lawsuit. (Doc. 99). At the pre-trial conference on January
25, 2018, (see Doc. 109), the Court explained courtroom
procedures and its expectations for mutual respect and
courtroom decorum. During a conference on the morning of
trial, the Court again explained how it would conduct the
trial and addressed issues raised by the parties. A jury was
empaneled. Before opening arguments, and outside the presence
of the jury, the Court ruled on motions in limine that
Plaintiff raised for the first time at that morning's
conference.
After
adverse rulings, Plaintiff-through gestures and
statements-showed his displeasure with the Court's
rulings. The Court admonished Plaintiff to conduct himself
respectfully during the trial. Both parties delivered opening
statements without incident. As Plaintiff conducted his
direct examination of the first witness, the Court reminded
Plaintiff that he must question the witness, and not engage
in a monologue. Plaintiff became irate. He cursed endlessly,
referred to the proceedings as racist, made threats to kill
everyone in the courtroom, and had to be restrained and
escorted out of the courtroom by Courtroom Security Officers
and prison personnel. As the Court apologized to the jury for
Plaintiffs behavior, he continued to cause a disturbance in
the holding cell that the Court could hear for several
minutes.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A court
may dismiss an action for failure of a plaintiff to prosecute
or to comply with any order of court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). The
court possesses the inherent authority to dismiss the action
sua sponte, without motion by a defendant.
McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir.
1988). Nonetheless, "a dismissal with prejudice for
failure to prosecute is an extreme sanction which is to be
used only when the 'plaintiffs conduct has threatened the
integrity of the judicial process [in a way which] leav[es]
the court no choice but to deny that plaintiff its
benefits."' McNeal v. Papasan, 842 F.2d
787, 790 (5th Cir. 1988) (quoting Rogers v. Kroger
Co., 669 F.2d 317, 321 (5th Cir.1982)) (alterations in
original).
Dismissal
with prejudice should be reserved for situations where the
"case discloses both a clear record of delay or
contumacious conduct by the plaintiff, and that a lesser
sanction would not better serve the best interests of
justice." Sampson v. Giles, 410 Fed.App'x
823, 824-25 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (unpublished)
(quoting McNeal, 842 F.2d at 790). When determining
whether dismissal with prejudice is appropriate, courts
typically examine whether one or more of the following
"aggravating factors" are present: "(1) the
plaintiffs personal contribution to the delay, (2) the
defendant's actual prejudice because of the delay; and
(3) delay that can be characterized as intentional."
See McNeal, 842 F.2d at 790.
III.
DISCUSSION
The
Court finds that continuing with this matter would be futile
because of Plaintiffs combative behavior and his continued
refusal to follow courtroom procedures. Based on the factors
enumerated by the Fifth Circuit in McNeal, the Court
further finds that dismissal with prejudice is warranted. 842
F.2d at 790. Despite the Court's best efforts to give
Plaintiff his day in court, Plaintiff is solely responsible
for turning the courtroom into a hostile environment where he
could not prosecute his claims. Moreover, at this late stage
in the proceedings, it would prejudice Defendants to go
through the time and expense of another jury trial,
especially where Plaintiff seems unwilling to legitimately
pursue his claims in a manner required by the Federal Rules
of Evidence and the local rules of this Court.[1]
IV.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the above-captioned
matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
---------