
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        December 7, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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-
