Johnson v. Erickson et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE
AARON JOHNSON, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No.: 	2:25-CV-193-DCLC-CRW
)
BRYCE ERICKSON, J. EDWARDS, 	)
S. BECKETT, VINSON W., and 	)
M. PATTERSON, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On December 1, 2025, this Court entered a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiff
leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this prisoner’s civil rights action, dismissing all claims and
Defendants for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and providing Plaintiff
with fourteen (14) days within which to submit an amended complaint [Doc. 5]. The deadline for
compliance has expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise
communicated with the Court.
Under Rule 41(b), the Court may dismiss an action where a plaintiff fails “to prosecute or
to comply with these rules or a court order[.]” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Schafer v. City
of Defiance Police Dep’t, 529 F.3d 731, 736 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted) (noting that Rule
41(b) “confers on district courts the authority to dismiss an action for failure of a plaintiff to . . .
comply with the Rules or any order of the court”). Rule 41(b) “is available to the district court as
a tool to effect management of its docket and” to avoid “unnecessary burdens on the tax-supported
courts[.]” Knoll v. AT&T Co., 176 F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1999) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). When considering dismissal of an action under Rule 41(b), a court must assess:
Case 2:25-cv-00193-DCLC-CRW Document 6 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>

2
(1) whether the party’s failure is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether
the adversary was prejudiced by the dismissed party’s conduct; (3) whether the
dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and
(4) whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered [before dismissal].
Rodriguez v. Hirshberg Acceptance Corp., 62 F.4th 270, 277 (6th Cir. 2023) (citing Wu v. T.W.
Wang, Inc., 420 F.3d 641, 643 (6th Cir. 2005)).
Applying these rules requires the Court to dismiss this action. Plaintiff’s initial complaint
failed to state a claim, Plaintiff has willfully failed to comply with the Court’s Order to file an
amended complaint, and the Court expressly warned Plaintiff that failure to comply would result
in the dismissal of this action [Doc. 5 p. 14 ¶ 8]. Any sanction short of dismissal would permit
this matter to stay active on the Court’s docket, despite there being no further controversy to
resolve.
“[W]hile pro se litigants may be entitled to some latitude when dealing with sophisticated
legal issues, acknowledging their lack of formal training, there is no cause for extending this
margin to straightforward procedural requirements that a layperson can comprehend as easily as a
lawyer.” 	Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991). 	Nothing about Plaintiff’s pro se
status prevented him from complying with the Court’s Order. 	Accordingly, the Court will
DISMISS this action without prejudice for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute and
comply with an Order of the Court. See Rodriguez, 62 F.4th at 277.
Finally, the Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good
faith and would be totally frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). Should
Plaintiff file a notice of appeal, he will be DENIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See id.
AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT ORDER SHALL ENTER.
Case 2:25-cv-00193-DCLC-CRW Document 6 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>

3
SO ORDERED:
s/Clifton L. Corker
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00193-DCLC-CRW Document 6 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>