United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
M. DOUGLAS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Johnny Joe Adam Usé, filed the instant federal civil
actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In these cases, he
alleged that his constitutional rights were violated in
various ways when he was arrested and detained in the
Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex in Houma,
first filed Civil Action No. 18-2442 against Terrebonne
Parish Sheriff Jerry J. Larpenter, the “EMT Medical
Staff, ” Terrebonne Parish President Gordon Dove,
Medical Administrator Richard Petie Neal, Warden Claude
Triche, Mike Thomas, and Wesley Johnson. In that lawsuit,
plaintiff claimed that he was harassed, falsely arrested,
subjected to excessive force, denied proper medical care, not
protected from violence at the hands of other inmates,
improperly confined in a restraint chair without access to a
bathroom, and not allowed to change clothes or shower after
urinating on himself.
then filed Civil Action No. 18-3040. In that new action, he
again sued Larpenter, Dove, Neal, Triche, Thomas, and
Johnson, as well as Sergeants Matthews, Henry, and Kibadaux. In
that lawsuit, plaintiff alleged that, on a second occasion,
he was again improperly confined in a restraint chair without
access to a bathroom and not allowed to change clothes or
shower after urinating on himself.
January 11, 2019, United States District Judge Martin L.C.
Feldman granted the unopposed motion to dismiss filed by
Terrebonne Parish President Gordon Dove, Medical
Administrator Richard Petie Neal, and the “EMT Medical
Staff” and dismissed the claims against those
defendants. Judge Feldman also dismissed the claims against
Terrebonne Parish Sheriff Jerry J. Larpenter and Warden
Claude Triche pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted. Lastly, Judge Feldman
ordered that the claims against Thomas, Johnson, and
Sergeants Matthews, Henry, and Kibadaux be allowed to proceed
pending further development.
the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge then issued an
order scheduling a telephone preliminary conference in this
matter for February 21, 2019. The parties were informed that
the purpose of the conference was to determine whether all
remaining parties would consent to proceed to trial before
the undersigned and to select a trial date, if appropriate.
Order also expressly provided:
IT IS ORDERED that, on or before
February 13, 2019, plaintiff file into the
record a written notice of the telephone
number where he can be reached on February 21, 2019,
at 2:00 p.m. If plaintiff fails to do so and fails to
participate in the scheduled conference, the
undersigned will recommend that plaintiff's remaining
claims be dismissed for failure to
that warning, plaintiff neither filed written notice of his
telephone number nor made any effort to participate in the
conference. Therefore, the conference could not be held.
Accordingly, it is now recommended that plaintiff's
remaining claims against Thomas, Johnson, and Sergeants
Matthews, Henry, and Kibadaux be dismissed for failure to
authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a
plaintiff's action because of failure to prosecute is
clear. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1962);
McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126 (5th Cir.
1988). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically
provide that a court may, in its discretion, dismiss a
plaintiff's action for failure to prosecute or for
failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
or any order of the court and that such a dismissal is
considered to be an adjudication on the merits. Fed.R.Civ.P.
41(b). The Court's power to dismiss for want of
prosecution should be used sparingly, although it may be
exercised sua sponte whenever necessary to achieve
the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Ramsay
v. Bailey, 531 F.2d 706, 707 (5th Cir. 1976).
plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court need only
consider his conduct in determining whether dismissal is
proper under Rule 41(b). Here, plaintiff failed to
participate in the preliminary conference as ordered. Due
solely to plaintiff's failure, this Court has no way to
advance his case on the docket. Accordingly, his remaining
claims against Thomas, Johnson, and Sergeants Matthews,
Henry, and Kibadaux should be dismissed for failure to
therefore RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs claims
against Mike Thomas, Wesley Johnson, and Sergeants Matthews,
Henry, and Kibadaux be DISMISS ...