Filed: Apr. 17, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 17, 2012
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. BROOMFIELD, District Judge. On March 13, 2012, defendants Broderick and Mason filed a "Motion for Order to Show Cause," requesting "that the Court enter [an] Order directing Plaintiff Patterson to show cause why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to prosecute it[.]" Mot. (Doc. 144) at 2:14-15. That defense motion was based upon plaintiff's refusal of delivery of legal mail. See Ord. (Doc. 148) at 1:23-24 (citations omitted). On March 19, 2012, this court o
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. BROOMFIELD, District Judge. On March 13, 2012, defendants Broderick and Mason filed a "Motion for Order to Show Cause," requesting "that the Court enter [an] Order directing Plaintiff Patterson to show cause why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to prosecute it[.]" Mot. (Doc. 144) at 2:14-15. That defense motion was based upon plaintiff's refusal of delivery of legal mail. See Ord. (Doc. 148) at 1:23-24 (citations omitted). On March 19, 2012, this court or..
More
ORDER
ROBERT C. BROOMFIELD, District Judge.
On March 13, 2012, defendants Broderick and Mason filed a "Motion for Order to Show Cause," requesting "that the Court enter [an] Order directing Plaintiff Patterson to show cause why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to prosecute it[.]" Mot. (Doc. 144) at 2:14-15. That defense motion was based upon plaintiff's refusal of delivery of legal mail. See Ord. (Doc. 148) at 1:23-24 (citations omitted). On March 19, 2012, this court ordered pro se plaintiff Patterson to file and serve within 14 "days of the date of entry of this order a response as to why the court should not dismiss this action for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)[.]" Id. at 2:12-15. In so ordering, this court reasoned:
This action has been pending nearly seven years. There is only one claim remaining. Since December, 2011, as the record amply shows, the court and defendants have accommodated plaintiff with respect to various issues he has been having with his physical and mental state — issues which may have been caused by or attributable to his periodic self-imposed hunger strikes.
Id. at 2:1-6 (emphasis in original). This court further reasoned: "This most recent turn of events, where plaintiff is refusing delivery of legal mail, . . . hence seriously call[s] into question his intent to pursue this litigation[.]" Id. at 2:6-9.
Plaintiff's response, although timely, is, for the most part non-responsive. Plaintiff did indicate that he would be responding to defendants' summary judgment also filed on March 13, 2012; and he timely did that. See Resp. (Doc. 151).
Despite the foregoing, the defendants assert that plaintiff's "actions . . . are not entirely consistent with his words." Reply (Doc. 152) at 1:23-24. Defendants fault plaintiff for not keeping the court apprised of his changes in mailing addresses, although he has been moved a number of times. They further fault plaintiff for refusing to accept "personal responsibility" for causing the purported delay in delivery of legal mail, and for "selectively accept[ing] delivery of his legal mail[.]" See Reply (Doc. 152) at 2:2; and 2:17. Additionally, defendants claim that plaintiff has "needlessly expanded this litigation through his self-destructive behaviors." Id. at 2:17-18.
As the record shows, since at least December, 2011, plaintiff has engaged in self-imposed hunger strikes, evidently "tr[ying] to exercise his right to die[.]" Resp. (Doc. 149) at 1, ¶ 5. Defendants express concern that plaintiff has "never explicitly stated that he intends to make every effort not to repeat [such] self-destructive behaviors, Reply (Doc. 152) at 2:11-12, which evidently necessitated plaintiff being placed "on `suicide' watch" as recently as February 15, 2012 — March 9, 2012. See Resp. (Doc. 149) at 1, ¶ 3). Such conduct, from defendants' standpoint, "undermin[es] [plaintiff's] "asserted desire to pursue this case[.]" Reply (Doc. 152) at 2:11.
Defendants acknowledge the possibility that the court may conclude, that "dismissal is too severe a sanction for [plaintiff's] temporary abandonment of this case[.]" Id. at 2:22-23. In that event, the defendants request that the court issue an order "especially so as to impress upon [plaintiff] that it will not condone these kinds of practices in the future." Id. at 2:25-26.
After seven years of litigation, only one aspect of this action remains — plaintiff's claim that defendants violated his free exercise rights under the First Amendment. That narrow claim is the subject of defendants' summary judgment motion filed March 13, 2012. Given the plaintiff's timely response to that motion, and the overall preference for resolution on the merits, this court will not dismiss the present action for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff's response sufficiently evinces his intent to pursue the last remaining aspect of this litigation. Further, the only possible filing allowed, is a reply by defendants, if they so desire. Thus, regardless of plaintiff's conduct going forward, his behavior cannot, and will not, deter the court from deeming this matter "ready for decision without oral argument on the day following the date set for filing a reply[.]" See Ord. (Doc. 148) at 3:18-19.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the court hereby DENIES, without prejudice, the Motion for an Order to Show Cause filed by defendants Broderick and Mason (Doc. 144). Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se
