Bethune et al v. Michigan, State of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TONY Q. BETHUNE, individually and
as Trustee of the TONY QUINN BETHUNE
LIVING TRUST, KORMESHAY L.
WILLIAMS, individually and as Co-Trustee
of the TONY QUINN BETHUNE
LIVING TRUST
Plaintiffs, 	Case No. 2:25-cv-10996
Hon. Brandy R. McMillion
v.
STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
On April 8, 2025, Plaintiffs Tony Q. Bethune and Kormeshay L. Williams,
individually, and as Co-Trustees of the TONY QUINN BETHUNE LIVING
TRUST, filed this civil action in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
State of Michigan, Dana Nessel, the Hon. Austin W. Garrett, and Officer Tatyana
Cox, in their individual and official capacities (collectively “Defendants”). 	See
generally ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges violations of their civil rights by
Defendants, in connection with their arrests on March 30, 2025. 	Id. 	Since filing
their case, Plaintiffs have shown little to no interest in pursuing their claims. They
have not filed proof of service for any Defendant, and the summonses have now
Case 2:25-cv-10996-BRM-CI ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 5

expired. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 	On September 12, 2025, the Court issued its
Order to Show Cause Why This Case Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to
Prosecute (ECF No. 9), ordering the Plaintiffs to notify the Court on or before
October 14, 2025, of their plan to proceed. The order further warned Plaintiffs that
failure to litigate their claim could result in dismissal of the case pursuant to Local
Rule 41.2. ECF No. 9. Additionally, after the Show Cause Order was returned as
undeliverable (ECF Nos. 10, 11), the Court made a second attempt to mail it to the
address Plaintiffs provided which was also returned as undeliverable (ECF No.12).
To date, Plaintiffs have failed to respond to the Show Cause Order or take any other
action that would indicate their intent to litigate their claim.
It is well settled that a district court has the authority to dismiss sua sponte a
lawsuit for failure to prosecute.” Carpenter v. City of Flint, 723 F.3d 700, 704 (6th
Cir. 2013). 	This authority is “necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the
disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion.” 	Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,
370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962). Further, the Local Rules state that the Court may dismiss
a case for failure to prosecute when “the parties have taken no action for a reasonable
time.” E.D. Mich. LR 41.2. However, before dismissing a lawsuit sua sponte for
failure to prosecute, a court typically must warn a party that “further noncompliance
would result in dismissal.” 	Wu v. T.W. Wang, Inc., 420 F.3d 641, 644 (6th Cir.
2005).
Case 2:25-cv-10996-BRM-CI ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 5

The Court utilizes a four-factor test to determine whether a case should be
dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b):
(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 of the action.
Saulsberry v. Holloway, 622 F. App’x 542, 545 (6th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). Here,
the factors collectively weigh in favor of dismissal.
The first factor weighs in favor of dismissal. Courts will find that a plaintiff
was motivated by willfulness, bad faith, or fault, if the plaintiff “display[s] either an
intent to thwart judicial proceedings or a reckless disregard for the effect of [her]
conduct on those proceedings.” 	Wu, 420 F.3d at 643 (citation omitted). In failing
to comply with the Court’s order to show cause, Plaintiffs have neglected to pursue
their case or provide the Court with a valid address to which it can send case-related
correspondence. Plaintiff’s conduct shows “willfulness and fault in that [they] were
at best extremely dilatory in not pursuing [their] claim, which indicates an intention
to let [their] case lapse.” Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Dep’t, 529 F.3d 731, 739
(6th Cir. 2008) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
Regarding the second factor, there is reason to believe that the Plaintiff’s
conduct prejudiced the defendants. To establish prejudice, courts consider whether
the defendants “waste[d] time, money, and effort in pursuit of cooperation which
Case 2:25-cv-10996-BRM-CI ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 3 of 5

[the plaintiff’s] was legally obligated to provide.” Harmon v. CSX Transp., Inc., 110
F.3d 364, 368 (6th Cir. 1997). 	At least one Defendant hired counsel to appear on
their behalf and filed an answer to the Plaintiff’s Complaint, meaning they have
expended at least a moderate amount of resources to support their defense. 	This
factor, therefore, also weighs in favor of dismissal.
The third factor weighs heavily in favor of dismissal as well, given the Court’s
issuance of its standard Notice Regarding Parties’ Responsibility to Notify Court of
Address Changes (ECF No. 4) and its Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 9). The Court
ordered Plaintiff to notify the Court of their plan to proceed on or before October 14,
2025, warning Plaintiffs that failure to respond would result in dismissal under Local
Rule 41.2. 	Id. 	Plaintiffs took no action in response to the Order. The Court then
reissued its Order on October 14, 2025, allowing Plaintiffs additional time to inform
the Court of whether they intended to proceed with their case. To date, the Plaintiffs
have still not responded.
The fourth factor also clearly weighs in favor of dismissal. 	The Court has
exhausted all available means to contact the Plaintiffs in this case and provide them
with an opportunity to be heard regarding the lapse in participation, thereby
attempting less drastic measures. Furthermore, they have an independent continuing
responsibility to stay informed about matters related to a lawsuit they initiated, and
they have neglected this responsibility by failing to provide a valid mailing address,
Case 2:25-cv-10996-BRM-CI ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 4 of 5

proof of service on the Defendants, or otherwise attempt to contact the Court to
rectify these issues. Under these circumstances, dismissal is the only “appropriate
remedy available.” 	Morley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 12-14653, 2013 WL
2051326, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 14, 2013) (finding that a plaintiff effectively
abandoned their case after failing to respond to an order to show cause). 	For the
reasons mentioned above, the Court finds that there is no utility in imposing or
considering lesser sanctions.
* * *
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Complaint
(ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute under
Rule 41(b), and E.D. Mich LR 41.2.
This is a final order that closes the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 10, 2025 	s/Brandy R. McMillion
Detroit, Michigan 	H ON. BRANDY R. MCMILLION
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-10996-BRM-CI ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 5 of 5