Chaos Dismissal
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a claim
This is a civil rights action brought by Cassandra M. Menoken, an attorney formerly employed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), against Charlotte A. Burrows, the EEOC’s Chair, in her official capacity. More than five months ago, the Court scheduled—at Menoken’s request—a jury trial to begin on January 17, 2024. Min. Order of Aug. 3, 2023. One week before trial, however, the plaintiff repeatedly failed to appear in court and authorized her then-standby counsel to advise the Court that she had no intention of participating further in the Court’s proceedings.
Since then, the plaintiff has made a series of allegations against this Court. Among other things, the plaintiff alleges that the Court has shown a “dismissive attitude about the case” and a “lack of regard for [the plaintiff] as an attorney deserving of professional respect.” Pl.’s Resp. to EEOC’s Mot. to Dismiss at 2, Dkt. 114. The plaintiff has also complained of “a veritable explosion of filings and orders from the Government and the Court since December 26, 2023,” all of which caused “chaos and confusion . . . predictably wreaking havoc on Plaintiff’s efforts to prepare for trial.” Id. at 1–2.
What Menoken fails to acknowledge, however, is that the “chaos and confusion” that has ensued has not stemmed from any actions taken by the Court or by opposing counsel, but rather from the plaintiff’s repeated failures to comply with court orders. Now before the Court, unsurprisingly, is the defendant’s motion to dismiss this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the Court’s inherent authority. Dkt. 113. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion.
Basis
The plaintiff has willfully disregarded multiple court orders. The Court ordered the plaintiff to appear at three separate hearings; she appeared at none. Min. Order of Jan. 4, 2024; Min. Order of Jan. 8, 2024; Min. Order of Jan. 9, 2024. The Court ordered the plaintiff to produce and identify certain exhibits for the government and to send her trial exhibits to the Court; she did not. Min. Order of Jan. 8, 2024; Min. Order of Jan. 9, 2024. And the Court granted the defendant summary judgment on several of the plaintiff’s claims; even so, the plaintiff’s pretrial statement and subsequent filings asserted those claims anyway. See, e.g., Pl.’s Pretrial Stmt. at 3, Dkt. 94. In the plaintiff’s own words, the plaintiff “has not diverted time and energy” to complying with many of the Court’s directives. See, e.g., Pl.’s Obj. & Resp. to the Court’s Jan. 5, 2024 Min. Order, Dkt. 108 (“Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s show cause Order is that she has not diverted time and energy to” complying with it.).
Given the plaintiff’s extreme, dilatory, and unprofessional conduct, the Court concludes that dismissal of this action with prejudice is appropriate under Rule 41(b). Starting with the Court’s own docket, the Court finds that the plaintiff’s behavior has seriously impeded the Court’s “orderly processing and trial of cases.” Automated Datatron, 659 F.2d at 1170. Contrary to the Court’s instructions, the plaintiff has not shared her exhibit list with the Court. Nor has she appeared at the Court’s pretrial hearings. As a result, the Court has been unable to rule on the parties’ objections to witnesses and exhibits or finalize its jury instructions, and it will not be able to proceed with trial without seriously disrupting its calendar. The Court is not willing to pursue lesser sanctions—such as dismissal without prejudice or further admonishment by the Court—that would delay other litigants’ access to justice because the plaintiff refuses to proceed in good faith.
(Mike Frisch)