Summary
The court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss a pro se plaintiff’s excessive-force claims under Rules 37 and 41(b). Although the plaintiff failed to appear for a court-ordered deposition and failed to respond to motions and court orders, the court finds that dismissal with prejudice is not warranted and that dismissal without prejudice would effectively operate as a dismissal with prejudice because the limitations period has expired. The court therefore stays and administratively closes the case, and denies the motion to compel without prejudice as moot.
Questions Presented
- Whether Matherne's failure to appear for a second deposition and failure to prosecute warranted dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b) and 41(b).
- Whether the court could dismiss the action without prejudice notwithstanding the expiration of the applicable Louisiana one-year prescriptive period for the Section 1983 claims.
- Whether defendants' motion to compel should be granted while the action was stayed and administratively closed.
Holdings
- Dismissal with prejudice was not warranted because the record did not establish purposeful delay or contumacious conduct, particularly in light of Matherne's pro se status.
- The court could not dismiss the claims without prejudice because the applicable limitations period had expired, making a without-prejudice dismissal effectively prejudicial.
- The remaining excessive-force claims were stayed and the case administratively closed; the motion to compel was denied without prejudice as moot and could be reurged if the case was reopened.
Factual background
Matherne, a pro se pretrial detainee, alleged that Officer Matthew Henry tackled him during an April 4, 2024 arrest, dislocating his right knee. During an October 6, 2025 deposition, Matherne stopped answering questions concerning the incident and left before the deposition was completed. Although the court ordered him to attend a second deposition on November 26, 2025, he did not appear and subsequently failed to respond to defendants' motions or the court's orders; the record also left uncertainty about whether he received notice of the second deposition and dismissal motion.
Procedural history
Matherne filed suit concerning an April 4, 2024 arrest and later amended his complaint. After statutory screening, the court dismissed the Houma Police Department and permitted excessive-force claims against Matthew Henry to proceed; the district judge adopted that recommendation. Matherne failed to complete a deposition, failed to appear for a second court-ordered deposition, and failed to respond to motions and court orders. The court denied dismissal, stayed the remaining claims, administratively closed the case, and denied the motion to compel without prejudice as moot.