United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER FURTHER ARTICULATING DISMISSAL OF THE
CASE
HON.
VANESSA L. BRYANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On
January 17, 2019, during the first day of evidence at trial,
this Court dismissed Plaintiff Kacey Lewis's case. The
reasoning for the dismissal is evident from the recording of
the proceedings. This order further articulates the reasons
for the dismissal.
I.
Factual Background
On June
4, 2018, the Court scheduled jury selection of this case for
January 15, 2019, with evidence to proceed on January 17,
2019. See [Dkt. Nos. 277, 292, 293, 296, 297, 298,
309, 311, 313, 341, 321, 322, 323]. Despite having the
benefit of the court's pretrial order containing detailed
instructions on how to prepare and more than six months to
prepare, Plaintiff appeared at jury selection without having
complied with the Court's pretrial order regarding
submission of exhibits.
Plaintiff's
disruptive behavior persisted during jury selection when he
refused to exercise peremptory challenges, claiming the
defense attorneys were distracting him by listening to a
recording of an exhibit Mr. Lewis proposed for the first time
that day to introduce as a trial exhibit. Counsel were
standing as far away from Mr. Lewis as possible, in the
extreme corner of the courtroom gallery on the opposite side
of the courtroom from where Mr. Lewis was sitting at
plaintiff's counsel table.
Following
jury selection, the Court addressed evidentiary matters.
Plaintiff was agitated, oppositional, and disruptive to the
extent he had to be restrained in hand cuffs and leg irons
for the safety of others.
Two
days later, on the morning evidence was scheduled to begin,
Correctional Officers informed the Courtroom Deputy that
Plaintiff arrived at the courthouse in an agitated state. The
Court ordered Plaintiff to remain in the restraints the
Officers had applied. Plaintiff objected and, although
Plaintiff was boisterous, the Court ordered the handcuffs
removed to facilitate the presentation of evidence. During
the Court's consideration of evidentiary matters before
the jury entered the courtroom Plaintiff remained agitated,
oppositional and disruptive.
After
the jury entered the courtroom, Plaintiff made his opening
statement uneventfully but became agitated and was
belligerent with the Court during his direct examination of
himself and glared menacingly at the parties sitting at the
defense table.
On
cross examination Plaintiff was asked about the damages he
was claiming and he acknowledged he was seeking damages for
emotional distress. When defense counsel asked if he had
filed other lawsuits claiming emotional distress Plaintiff
refused to answer the question. When reminded that he had to
state the basis of his objection, he cited an irrelevant rule
of evidence and then challenged the relevance of the
testimony elicited. The Court explained the relevance and
overruled the objection. Plaintiff then refused to answer
citing “conscientious objection.” The Court
instructed him to state the religious or other belief which
would be violated if he answered the question and he refused.
Instead he argued with the Court ultimately admitting he
refused to answer because disagreed with the Court's
ruling and believed whether he claimed others caused him
emotional distress was not relevant. Plaintiff persisted in
his refusal to answer and the Defendants moved for dismissal.
The Court provided Plaintiff another opportunity to change
his mind and answer the question as the Court had ordered,
but Plaintiff declined. The Court declared a recess and
excused the jury.
Outside
the presence of the jury, the Court asked Plaintiff if he
would answer the question posed and other questions posed by
the defense which the Court ruled were proper against
Plaintiff's objection. He said he would not do either.
The Court explained it was the role of the Court to determine
what the jury heard and that a witness had to answer
questions the Court ruled were proper. Finally, the Court
explained that it would have to dismiss the case if Plaintiff
refused to answer questions the Court ruled were proper. The
Court reminded Mr. Lewis that the Court had dismissed another
case he filed for failure to proceed with trial and would
have to dismiss this one if he persisted in refusing to
answer questions the Court ruled were proper. The Court
reminded Mr. Lewis that the Court reopened the prior case
when Mr. Lewis convinced the Court that his earlier refusal
to proceed with trial was due to his agitation and inability
to think clearly and control his behavior. The Court then
explained it was declaring a recess to disengage and afford
Plaintiff time to compose himself and reconsider his
position. Before recessing, the Court reminded Mr. Lewis his
case would be dismissed if he continued to refuse to honor
the Court's rulings and answer questions the Court ruled
proper.
When
the proceeding resumed approximately 10 minutes later,
Plaintiff stated he would not respect the Court's rulings
and answer the questions properly posed. The Court dismissed
the case. This decision further articulates the Court's
reasons for dismissing the case.
II.
Legal Standard
A court
may dismiss a case upon motion of a party to an action for
the unjustified failure of a Plaintiff to prosecute.
“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a
plaintiff's action with prejudice because of his failure
to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted. The power to invoke
this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays
in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion
in the calendars of the District Courts. The power is of
ancient origin, having its roots in judgments of nonsuit and
non prosequitur entered at common law.” Link v.
Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (affirming
dismissal for failure to prosecute where plaintiff's
counsel failed to appear at a duly scheduled pre-trial
conference and gave no reasonable explanation for his
absence, finding it could “reasonably be inferred from
[counsel's] absence, as well as from the drawn-out
history of the litigation that petitioner had been
deliberately proceeding in dilatory fashion.”). The
Supreme Court noted that the authority to dismiss for failure
to prosecute was expressly recognized in Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b), which states:
If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these
rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the
action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order
states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and
any dismissal not under this rule- except one for lack of
jurisdiction, improper venue, or ...