Office of Administrative Law Judges 525 Vine Street, Suite 900 Cincinnati, OH 45202
(513) 684-3252 (513) 684-6108 (FAX)
Issue date: 14Jun2001 Case No.: 2000-STA-0027
In the Matter of:
ROBERTO VAZQUEZ,
Complainant
v.
AUTO TRUCK TRANSPORT,
Respondent
RECOMMENDED ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This proceeding arises from a complaint filed under § 405 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), 49 U.S.C. § 31105, et seq., and its implementing regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 1978.
On or about June 14, 1999, the Complainant, Roberto Vazquez, filed a complaint alleging that he was discharged by the Respondent, Auto Truck Transport, in violation of the employee protection provisions of the statute cited above. Following an investigation, the Secretary of Labor found no violation of the STAA and dismissed the complaint. The Complainant appealed and the case was forwarded to the Office of Administrative Law Judges. The undersigned, on April 18, 2000, issued a Notice of Hearing and Prehearing Order. The hearing was scheduled for June 13, 2000 in Laredo, Texas. The date for close of discovery was set for May 15, 2000 and the parties were ordered to file certain information on or before May 22, 2000. The parties were instructed that failure to comply with the Prehearing Order could result in dismissal of the case or the imposition of other appropriate sanctions.
The Complainant, on May 4, 2000, filed a Petition to Obtain Legal Counsel, requesting that the Court provide him with counsel. By letter dated May 10, 2000, Beth Paxton, Attorney Advisor for the undersigned, informed Mr. Vazquez that the provisions of the STAA do not provide for appointment of counsel and that he would need to independently obtain counsel or appear pro se at the June 13, 2000 hearing.
[Page 2]
The Respondent, on May 22, 2000, filed a Compliance in response to the Prehearing Order. On May 26, 2000 the Complainant filed Motions for Continuance and Appointment of Counsel. He requested again that this Office appoint legal counsel and asked that the hearing be rescheduled for November 2000. He stated that a continuance would allow him to contact persons who he intends to call as witnesses. He did not respond to the information required by the Prehearing Order. The Respondent, on May 30, 2000, filed a Motion to Dismiss based on the Complainant's failure to comply with the Prehearing Order. The undersigned, on May 30, 2000, ordered that Mr. Vazquez show cause, on or before June 8, 2000, why his claim should not be dismissed due to his failure to file a prehearing statement. Another Order issued on May 30, 2000 denied the Complainant's request for appointment of counsel and granted a continuance of the June 13, 2000 hearing.
On June 8, 2000 the Complainant filed a response to the Show Cause Order. He stated that he had difficulty understanding the Prehearing Order and requested that the Court provide him with "a prehearing order that is written in plain English without the technical legal terminology." He also requested that the Court explain the hearing process "step by step" and provide him with legal instructional materials. By Order dated July 14, 2000, the undersigned denied Complainant's request for legal instruction regarding the hearing, noting that to do so would require the Court to relinquish its independent fact finding and decision making duties. The Complainant was ordered to file a response to the April 18, 2000 Prehearing Order within twenty days. The Order further provided that, "If a proper response is not timely filed, then this matter will be dismissed."
The Complainant filed a Compliance on August 1, 2000. The Compliance did not contain all of the required information. On August 14, 2000 the Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the Compliance was not responsive to the Prehearing Order. The undersigned, on August 29, 2000, issued a Revised Notice of Hearing and Prehearing Order, offering "the Complainant one final opportunity to comply with the requirements of the Pretrial Order." The parties were required to file certain information on or before September 18, 2000 to the extent that such information was not previously furnished. It was further ordered that the hearing would commence on December 12, 2000 in Laredo, Texas. The parties were advised that failure to comply could result in dismissal of the claim.
On September 8, 2000 the Complainant filed several motions. He filed a Motion for Continuance, asking that the hearing be rescheduled for April 2001. He also filed Motions for Assignment of Certified Legal Translator and for Translation of Court Documents/Orders. He requested that the Court translate all documents and orders in Spanish and appoint a Spanish/English translator at the December 12, 2000 hearing. The Complainant filed a Compliance with the Revised Prehearing Order on September 15, 2000. An Order rescheduling the hearing for May 15, 2001 was issued on October 18, 2000. Complainant's Motions for translation of court documents and a court-appointed translator were denied on October 18, 2000.
On October 28, 2000 the Complainant requested that all court documents be sent to his new Salt Lake City, Utah address rather than his Laredo, Texas address. He subsequently requested that court documents be sent to a Las Vegas, Nevada address and requested on March 26, 2001 that the hearing, scheduled for May 15, 2001 in Laredo, Texas, be held in Las Vegas, Nevada. The request for change of venue was denied on April 9, 2001. On May 4, 2001 the parties were ordered to file, on or before May 9, 2001, a statement noting the number of witness to be called at the hearing, estimated length of their testimony, and the number of exhibits to be submitted into evidence. It was noted that the filing could be made orally by telephone but was required to be made no later than May 9, 2001 at 4:00 p.m. (EDT). The Order included the language: "Failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of this claim or judgment entered against the defaulting party." The Respondent, Auto Truck Transport, filed responses on May 2 and 8, 2001. No response was received by the Complainant.
[Page 3]
On May 7, 2001 the Complainant moved to continue the May 15, 2001 hearing "at least until January or February of 2002" due to financial reasons. The Respondent objected to said Motion, arguing that it was the Complainant's third continuance request. On May 10, 2001 the Complainant was ordered to show cause why his request for hearing and for relief under the STAA should not be dismissed due to his failure to respond to the May 4, 2001 Order and his failure to prosecute the claim. It was further ordered that the May 15, 2001 hearing be canceled. No response was received from the Complainant.
Discussion
The Complainant's failure to respond to the May 10, 2001 Order is the most recent instance of several failures to comply with the Orders of this Court. In addition, Mr. Vazquez has requested numerous continuances of the hearing, originally set for June 13, 2000, and has most recently requested that the hearing be continued until "at least" January or February of 2002. Further, he has burdened this Court and has delayed the processing of his claim through his repeated requests for information and services which are outside the realm of the Court's permissible function. The Complainant has requested court-appointed legal counsel, appointment of a Spanish/English translator, translation of court documents into Spanish, a "step by step" explanation of the hearing process, as well as court-provided legal instructional materials.
Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may dismiss an action with prejudice "[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply" with any court order. See Pyramid Energy, Ltd. v. Heyl & Patterson, Inc., 869 F.2d 1058, 106061 (7th Cir. 1989); Roland v. Salem Contract Carriers, Inc., 811 F.2d 1175, 1177 (7th Cir. 1987). Moreover, courts possess an "inherent power" to dismiss a case on their own initiative for lack of prosecution. See Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962); Curley v. Grand Rapids Iron & Metal Co., ARB No. 00-013, ALJ No. 1999-STA-39 (ARB Feb. 9, 2000). This power is "governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases." Id. at 63031.
The Complainant has failed to disclose circumstances explaining or excusing his noncompliance with multiple Court Orders. Although it is recognized that Mr. Vazquez is acting without the assistance of legal counsel, dismissal of a claim is proper when a pro se claimant engages in a clear pattern of unjustified delay. See Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991). Particularly when, as here, a claimant is warned that noncompliance could result in dismissal, dismissal of a claim for failure to prosecute is appropriate.
[Page 4]
It is, therefore,
RECOMMENDED that the claim of Roberto Vazquez under Section 305 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, 49 U.S.C. § 31105, be DISMISSED.
ROBERT L. HILLYARD
Administrative Law Judge
NOTICE: This Recommended Order of Dismissal and the Administrative File in this matter will be forwarded for review by the Administrative Review Board, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-4309, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20210. See 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(a); 61 Fed. Reg. 19978 (1996).
