USCA1 Opinion
December 7, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-1521
BENJAMIN HOOVER, JR.,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Cyr and Stahl,
Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Benjamin Hoover, Jr. on brief pro se. ____________________
Michael L. Rosen, Paul V. Lyons, and Foley, Hoag & Eliot on brief ________________ _____________ ___________________
for appellees.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. The district court dismissed Benjamin ___________
Hoover's 42 U.S.C. 1981 suit for his counsel's failure to
attend a status conference. Hoover now appeals. We affirm.
After Hoover's case had been pending for nearly four
months, the court issued a notice advising Hoover's counsel
that it would hold a status conference in two weeks. Counsel
asserts that she did not receive this notice, but, five days
before the conference was to take place, Hoover told her
about it. Counsel then called a district court clerk to
reschedule the conference. After discussion, the clerk
declined to reschedule, warning counsel that failure to
attend the conference would result in dismissal of the case.
Several hours before the conference was held, counsel moved
for a continuance, which was denied. She did not attend the
conference. Her motion advanced only one colorable reason
for not attending. It averred that the date "was a problem
with regard to other matters I had scheduled for that date."
Concluding, apparently, that counsel had no good reason for
failing to appear, the court dismissed the action.
Our cases make clear that a district court may dismiss a
case with prejudice if plaintiff or counsel has willfully or
unjustifiably disobeyed a court order. Compare Barreto v. _______ _______
Citibank, N.A., 907 F.2d 15, 16 (1st Cir. 1990), and Goldman, ______________ ___ ________
Antonetti, Ferraiuoli, Axtmayer & Hertell v. Medfit ________________________________________________ ______
-2-
International, Inc., 982 F.2d 686, 692 (1st Cir. 1993), with ___________________ ____
Velazquez-Rivera v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 920 F.2d 1072, ________________ _______________________
1076-77 (1st Cir. 1990) and Benjamin v. Aroostook Medical ___ ________ _________________
Center, Inc., 57 F.3d 101, 108 (1st Cir. 1995). Hoover bears ____________
the burden of establishing the requisite excuse or lack of
willfulness. Taylor v. Medtronics, Inc., 861 F.2d 980, 987 ______ ________________
(6th Cir. 1988); Adkins v. United States, 816 F.2d 1580, 1582 ______ _____________
(Fed. Cir. 1987) (dismissals for failure to comply with
discovery orders). Counsel has offered no valid explanation
for her failure to attend the conference, and so we conclude
that dismissal was not an abuse of discretion.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. _____________________________________
-3-