McGhee v. Broomfield
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:20-cv-05135
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
McGhee v. Broomfield: Judge Gilliam dismissed the case without prejudice after McGhee stopped communicating and failed to provide a current address.
McGhee’s § 1983 action was dismissed without prejudice; judgment was entered for the defendants, pending motions were denied as moot, and the case was closed.
What happened
In McGhee v. Broomfield, McGhee, who was representing himself, sued under a federal civil-rights law over alleged constitutional violations while he was housed at San Quentin State Prison. The court had found some claims could proceed but required McGhee to provide a current address and, where applicable, amend his complaint.
McGhee did not provide an address by the court’s deadline and had not communicated with the court since August 11, 2020. The court found that all five factors for dismissal favored ending the case, including the need to manage its docket, likely prejudice to the defendants, and the lack of a workable lesser sanction.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to respond to the court’s order under Rule 41(b). The clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants, deny pending motions as moot, and close the case; McGhee may seek to reopen it by showing good cause for the failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- McGhee v. Broomfield · No. 4:20-cv-05135
- Haywood Gilliam
- Mar. 22, 2021
Background
Tijue Adolphus McGhee filed a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for violations of constitutional rights. He alleged that officers at San Quentin State Prison violated his rights. The opinion identifies the officers as Jaime-Daumy and Wren and also refers to defendants Broomfield and Davis.
McGhee told the court on August 11, 2020, that he had moved to an unspecified motel in Oakland, California, but did not provide a specific address where the court could reach him. The court later screened his complaint and found that it stated claims under the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments against Jaime-Daumy and Wren. The court dismissed with prejudice claims concerning alleged harassment, abuse, and intimidation by Jaime-Daumy, and dismissed Broomfield and Davis with leave to amend. McGhee did not file an amended complaint.
On January 7, 2021, the court dismissed Broomfield and Davis from the action and ordered McGhee to provide a current address by February 4, 2021. The court warned that failure to provide an address could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. McGhee did not provide an address or otherwise communicate with the court. His last communication remained the August 11, 2020 filing.
Reasoning
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a district court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to comply with court orders or fails to prosecute. The court considered five factors: the public interest in resolving litigation promptly, the court’s need to manage its docket, prejudice to the defendants, the public policy favoring decisions on the merits, and the availability of less severe sanctions. The court also required unreasonable delay.
The court found that all five factors favored dismissal. McGhee’s extended lack of communication prevented the court from moving the case forward or contacting him. The court found presumed prejudice to the defendants because they would otherwise have to conduct discovery and file a dispositive motion that could not be served on McGhee. The court also concluded that the case could not be decided on its merits if the defendants and court could not reach him.
The court found no effective lesser sanction because McGhee had not responded to the prior order. It also found the delay unreasonable because McGhee had not communicated with the court since August 2020.
Disposition
The court DISMISSED the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to respond to the court’s order under Rule 41(b). It stated that the case could be reopened if McGhee showed good cause for his failure to prosecute. The clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendants, deny all pending motions as moot, and close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.