UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Bernadette Kimbrough,

Plaintiff, Case No. 25-10789

v. Judith E. Levy United States District Judge YMCA and Hannah Reisdorff, Mag. Judge David R. Grand Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Bernadette Kimbrough filed the complaint in this matter on March 21, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff is self- represented or pro se. On March 25, 2025, the Court issued an Order to Supplement the Record because “Plaintiff d[id] not provide the required financial information.” (ECF No. 4, PageID.16.) The Court required Plaintiff to “file an [a]pplication with completed information by April 14, 2025.” (Id. at PageID.18.) On March 27, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to correct deficiencies in her complaint or else voluntarily dismiss the suit because her complaint failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). (ECF No. 5.) The Court directed her to file the amended complaint by April 14, 2025 and cautioned that “[f]ailure to comply with

this order, or the March 25, 2025 order [on her application], may result in dismissal.” (Id. at PageID.20.) Plaintiff did not file a revised

application or an amended complaint. On April 16, 2025, the Court issued an Order for Plaintiff to Show Cause, requiring Plaintiff to “show cause in writing by Friday, April 25, 2025 why this matter should not be

dismissed for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 41.2, and failure to comply with this Order, the Court’s March 25, 2025 Order, and the Court’s March 27, 2025 Order.”

(ECF No. 6, PageID.25.) Plaintiff then filed a motion to appoint counsel. (ECF No. 7.) The Court denied the motion but provided resources for pro se litigants in the Eastern District of Michigan. (ECF No. 8, PageID.33.)

The Court dismisses this case without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders and her failure to prosecute the case against Defendants. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) “provides

for dismissal of an action where the plaintiff has failed ‘to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.’” Bonanno v. Virginia, No. 22- 5546,

, at *2 (6th Cir. June 26, 2023) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); citing Jourdan v. Jabe,

(6th Cir. 1991)), cert. denied,

(2024), reh’g denied,

(2024).

Courts in the Eastern District find a Rule 41(b) dismissal is proper after the Plaintiff ignores an order warning her file a complete application to

proceed without prepayment of fees and costs. See, e.g., Tucker v. Quinones, No. 23-CV-13120,

, at *2 (E.D. Mich. June 11, 2024); Tucker v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, No. 24-10961,

, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 5, 2024); Harper v. Warden, FCI McDowell, No. 20-00504,

, at *1 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 27, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 20-00504,

(S.D.W. Va. Feb. 17, 2021). When contemplating the dismissal of a case under Rule 41(b), the Court considers the following four factors:

(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 was ordered. Bay Corrugated Container, Inc. v. Gould, Inc.,

(6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.,

, 363 (6th Cir. 1999)). “While none of these factors is dispositive, a case may be dismissed by a district court where there is a clear record of delay or

contumacious conduct on the part of the plaintiff.” Mulbah v. Detroit Bd. of Educ.,

, 591 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Knoll, 176 F.3d at 363;

Little v. Yeutter,

(6th Cir. 1993)). Here, the first factor favors dismissal. “To show that a party’s failure to comply was motivated by bad faith, willfulness, or fault, the

conduct ‘must display either an intent to thwart judicial proceedings or a reckless disregard for the effect of [his] conduct on those proceedings.’” Mager v. Wis. Cent. Ltd.,

(6th Cir. 2019) (alteration in

original) (quoting Carpenter v. City of Flint,

(6th Cir. 2013)). Plaintiff did not submit—by April 14, 2025—a complete application to proceed without prepaying the fees or costs of this

litigation or an amended complaint. Plaintiff has also not requested an extension of time to submit these documents.1 “Although [her] conduct does not establish bad faith, it nevertheless shows willfulness and fault

in that [s]he was at best extremely dilatory in not pursuing [her] claim[s],

1 Although she filed a motion on March 16, 2025, it was not an application or the amended complaint. (ECF No. 7, PageID.27.) The Court construed it as a motion to appoint counsel, which it denied. (ECF No. 8.) which indicates an intention to let [her] case lapse.” Schafer, 529 F.3d at 739.

The second factor does not favor dismissal. “Assessing prejudice for purposes of Rule 41(b) requires the district court to look to the ‘waste[d]

time, money, and effort in pursuit of cooperation which [the non-dilatory party] was legally obligated to provide.’” Rodriguez v. Hirshberg Acceptance Corp.,

, 277–78 (6th Cir. 2023) (alterations in

original) (quoting Wu v. T.W. Wang, Inc.,

(6th Cir. 2005)). Here, Defendants have not been prejudiced by Plaintiff’s conduct because they have not been served with the complaint or appeared in the

case. The third factor favors dismissal. Whether the plaintiff was warned about the possibility of dismissal “is . . . a key consideration when

determining whether a district court abuses its discretion in dismissing a case pursuant to Rule 41(b).” Stough v. Mayville Cmty. Schs.,

, 615 (6th Cir. 1998). In this case, the Court has repeatedly warned

Plaintiff about the possibility of dismissal if she failed to comply with the Court’s orders. On March 27, 2025, the Court warned that if Plaintiff did not “take immediate steps to correct the deficiencies by filing an amended complaint, or else voluntarily dismiss her claims,” before April 14, 2025, “the Court will dismiss her claims against these two Defendants for

failure to prosecute pursuant to Local Rule 41.2.” (ECF No. 5, PageID.22.) On April 16, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to “show cause in writing

by Friday, April 25, 2025 why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 41.2, and failure to comply with this Order, the Court’s March 25, 2025

Order, and the Court’s March 27, 2025 Order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(b).” (ECF No. 6, PageID.25.) On April 21, 2025, the Court reminded Plaintiff that she must file an amended complaint or

face dismissal. (ECF No. 8, PageID.30 (citing ECF No. 5).) As of today’s date, Plaintiff has still not heeded the Court’s warnings. The fourth factor also favors dismissal because the Court

considered lesser sanctions prior to this dismissal order. The Court issued an order for Plaintiff to supplement the record and an order for Plaintiff to correct deficiencies in the complaint. (ECF Nos. 4, 5.) The

Court gave Plaintiff ample time to correct the deficiencies identified in those orders. In sum, three of the four factors discussed above favor dismissal. The Court therefore concludes that it is not an abuse of discretion to

dismiss this case for failure to comply with the Court’s orders, for want of prosecution, and due to Plaintiff’s failure to file a complete application

to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Mich. LR 11.2, 41.2. Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 1, 2025 s/Judith E. Levy Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on May 1, 2025.

s/William Barkholz WILLIAM BARKHOLZ Case Manager