Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.
370 U.S. 626 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal District Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss a plaintiff's action with prejudice for failure to prosecute, even without a motion from the defendant. This power may be exercised within the court's sound discretion based on the entire procedural history of the case, including an attorney's unexcused failure to attend a scheduled pretrial conference.
Facts:
- William Link commenced an action against The Wabash Railroad Company for injuries sustained in a collision between his automobile and one of the company's trains.
- The litigation had been pending for approximately six years.
- The District Court scheduled a pretrial conference for October 12, 1960, and duly notified counsel for both parties.
- On the morning of the conference, Link's counsel telephoned the courthouse from Indianapolis, about 160 miles away.
- Link's counsel informed the judge's secretary that he was 'busy preparing papers to file with the [Indiana] Supreme Court' and could not attend the 1:00 p.m. conference.
- The lawyer requested that the conference be reset for the following day or the day after.
- Link's counsel did not appear at the scheduled pretrial conference.
Procedural Posture:
- William Link sued The Wabash Railroad Company in U.S. District Court (trial court).
- The District Court granted the railroad's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the case.
- Link appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for trial.
- The railroad's petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court (highest court) was denied.
- Following remand and several years of further proceedings, the District Court, on its own motion, dismissed the action with prejudice because Link's counsel failed to appear for a pretrial conference.
- Link appealed this second dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Link's petition for certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal District Court abuse its discretion by dismissing a case with prejudice on its own motion for failure to prosecute, when the plaintiff's attorney fails to attend a scheduled pretrial conference against a backdrop of protracted litigation?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Harlan
No, a federal District Court does not abuse its discretion under these circumstances. A court's authority to dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of prosecution is an inherent power necessary to manage its docket and prevent undue delays. This power is not abrogated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which merely authorizes a defendant's motion for such a dismissal. The court found that the attorney's excuse for non-appearance was inadequate, and it could reasonably infer from his absence and the long history of the litigation that the plaintiff had been deliberately dilatory. A client is bound by the acts and omissions of their freely chosen attorney, and the proper remedy for an attorney's misconduct is a malpractice suit, not the continuation of a long-delayed case at the defendant's expense.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
Yes, the District Court abused its discretion. Dismissing the case with prejudice inflicted a serious injury on an innocent client to punish his lawyer's personal conduct, which is a confiscation of the client's property without due process. The record does not support a finding of 'want of prosecution,' as much of the six-year delay was attributable to the defendant's actions and an erroneous ruling by the trial judge. It is contrary to fundamental fairness to impose such a drastic penalty on a client who was, as far as the record shows, simply trusting his lawyer to handle the case and had no notice that his claim was in jeopardy. The laudable goal of reducing court congestion should not be achieved by sacrificing a litigant's substantial right to have their case heard on the merits.
Analysis:
This case firmly establishes the broad discretionary authority of federal trial courts to manage their dockets through the ultimate sanction of dismissal with prejudice. It clarifies that this power is inherent and not limited by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The decision's most significant impact is its strong affirmation of agency principles in the attorney-client relationship, holding that a client is bound by their lawyer's procedural failings. This precedent places the onus on clients to select counsel carefully and puts attorneys on notice regarding the severe consequences of dilatory tactics or procedural noncompliance, while directing aggrieved clients towards malpractice claims as their primary remedy.
Unlock the full brief for Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.