Criswell v. Fields

• Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
• Decided: July 2, 2024
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00249
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DELTA DIVISION

ERIC McGAIL CRISWELL PLAINTIFF ADC #165409

v. No: 2:22-cv-00249-BSM-PSH

UNDRAY FIELDS, et al. DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION INSTRUCTIONS The following proposed Recommendation has been sent to United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. You may file written objections to all or part of this recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection, and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of this recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact. DISPOSITION Plaintiff Eric McGail Criswell, an inmate at the Arkansas Division of Correction’s East Arkansas Regional Unit, filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on December 27, 2022, by filing a complaint and amended complaint (Doc. Nos. 2- 3). Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by remaining defendants Undray Fields and Tyrone Allison (the “Defendants”)1 (Doc. No. 38). The Defendants move to dismiss this case because Criswell has failed to comply with a court order

compelling him to respond to the Defendants’ discovery requests. On March 25, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to compel (Doc. No. 32). They attached a copy of a good faith letter sent to Criswell on March 15, 2024, with

copies of their interrogatories and requests for production of documents attached (Doc. No. 32-1). According to the motion, the Defendants sent their discovery requests to Criswell on February 13, 2024, and did not receive a response. They also did not receive a response to their good faith letter before filing their motion.

Criswell was given an opportunity to respond to the Defendants’ motion (see Doc. No. 34), but did not do so. On April 22, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants’ motion to compel and

ordered Criswell to respond to the Defendants’ discovery requests within 30 days (Doc. No. 37). Criswell was informed that his failure to comply could result in sanctions, including dismissal of this case. Id. There is no indication that Criswell did not receive a copy of this Order.

On May 31, 2024, the Defendants moved to dismiss this case as a sanction because Criswell failed to comply with the Court’s order compelling him to respond

1 Criswell’s claims against Dexter Payne and William Straughn were previously dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Doc. No. 27. to their discovery requests (Doc. No. 38). Criswell was notified in a text order of the opportunity to file a response to the motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 40), but has not done so. Rule 37(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a district court to dismiss an action when a party fails to respond to discovery requests. See also Aziz

v. Wright, 34 F.3d 587, 589 (8th Cir. 1994) (no motion to compel is required before dismissal under Rule 37(d)). Likewise, Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a defendant to move to dismiss an action or any claim against it when the plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure or

a court order. Criswell’s failure to respond to the Defendants’ discovery requests is cause for the dismissal of this case, as is his failure to comply with the Court’s order compelling such responses. As the plaintiff in this action, Criswell is obligated to respond to appropriate discovery requests from the Defendants. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Defendants’ motion (Doc. No. 38) be granted, and this

case be dismissed without prejudice. DATED this 2nd day of July, 2024.

erent ose