Jourdan v. Jabe, 90-1850
| Citation | 951 F.2d 108 |
| Decision Date | 16 December 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-1850,90-1850 |
| Parties | James M. JOURDAN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John JABE; and L. Boyd, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
James M. Jourdan, Jr., pro se.
James C. Barnes, Jr., Southfield, Mich. (briefed), for plaintiff-appellant.
Chester S. Sugeriski, Jr., Office of Atty. Gen., Corrections Div., Lansing, Mich. (briefed), for defendants-appellees.
Before BOGGS and NORRIS, Circuit Judges, TIMBERS, Senior Circuit Judge. *
This action presents a single question for our consideration: Does the relaxed pleading standard traditionally accorded pro se litigants extend to procedural matters, such as court-imposed discovery deadlines? We conclude that, while 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.
Appellant, James M. Jourdan, Jr., filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 26, 1988. At that time, Jourdan was a prisoner in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections. He alleged that defendants, the warden and librarian of the State Prison of Southern Michigan, deprived him of several constitutional rights. Because the district court ultimately dismissed his complaint for failure to prosecute, the substantive merits of these claims are not now before us for review.
Both defendants answered Jourdan's complaint. Thereafter, the district court set a discovery cutoff date of May 15, 1989 and a motion cutoff date of June 15, 1989. After Jourdan filed a motion for extension of time, the court extended these deadlines until August 15, 1989 and September 15, 1989, respectively. The court further delayed these cutoff dates until November 1, 1989 and December 1, 1989 in response to a second motion for an extension.
On October 30, 1989, Jourdan filed a third motion for extension of time to conduct discovery and file dispositive motions. This motion was denied on January 4, 1990. In her order denying Jourdan's motion, the magistrate judge noted that no discovery requests had been filed with the court despite the previous extensions of time.
On February 1, 1990, defendants submitted a pretrial statement as required by a district court scheduling order; plaintiff did not. The magistrate judge issued a report on February 28, 1990, which recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute. The district court adopted this recommendation on June 19, 1990.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) recognizes the power of the district court to enter a sua sponte order of dismissal. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962); Carter v. Memphis, 636 F.2d 159, 161 (6th Cir.1980). This court applies an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing such decisions. 370 U.S. at 633, 82 S.Ct. at 1390.
Appellant correctly observes that the allegations of a complaint drafted by a pro se litigant are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers in the sense that a pro se complaint will be liberally construed in determining whether it fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 292, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National City Bank v. Aronson
...that claims be adjudicated on their merits." Coleman v. Shoney's, Inc., 79 Fed.Appx. 155, 157 (6th Cir.2003) (citing Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir.1991)). Because the tendered sur-reply and the declaration attached to that filing address the merits of the issue of this Court's......
-
Finley v. Kondaur Capital Corp.
...Finley's complaint to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” because he proceeds pro se, Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir.1991), this leniency “has limits.” Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir.1996). The complaint must still satisfy the ......
-
Ishler v. C.I.R., Civil Action No. CV-05-S-1108-NE.
...every case to trial. As this court has noted, the lenient treatment generally accorded to pro se litigants has limits. Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir.1991). Where, for example, a pro se litigant fails to comply with an easily understood court-imposed deadline, there is no basis......
-
Thompson v. Wilson, 1:05 CV 2750.
...v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993) (strict adherence to procedural requirements); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108 (6th Cir.1991); Brock v. Hendershott, 840 F.2d 339, 343 (6th Cir.1988). III. EXHAUSTION AND PROCEDURAL DE FAULT The respondent contends tha......
-
Motions
...969 (D.C. Cir. 1976). • Whether plaintiff was represented by counsel. See Carver , 946 F.2d at 451 (pro se plaintiff); Jourdan v. Jabe , 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991). • The trial court’s need to manage its docket. Little , 984 F.2d at 162; Omaha Indian Tribe v. Tract I - Blackbird Bend......
-
Table of Cases
...1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1987), Form 7-46 Josey v. John R. Hollingsworth Corp., 996 F.2d 632 (3rd Cir. 1993), Form 11-03 Jourdan v. Jabe , 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991), §7:86 Joynor v. Berman Leasing Co. , 398 F.2d 875, 878 (5th Cir. 1968), §7:128 JRL Enterprises v. ProCorp Assocs., 2003 U......