IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OPINION OF ...

Watts v. Two Plus Two, Inc.S.Ct. Civ. No. 2007-127Concurring OpinionPage 21 of 23Poulis, 747 F.2d at 869 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), 37(a)(4), 37(b), 37(d), 37(g)).Therefore, as a general rule, dismissing a case for failure to prosecute is a sanction a courtshould impose as a last resort. Id.However, in Briscoe, the court concluded that there were no alternative sanctionsavailable to the plaintiff; therefore, it dismissed the case for failure to prosecute. Briscoe,538 F.3d at 262. Distinguishable from Poulis, Briscoe reasoned that because the appellantwas proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, monetary sanctions and attorney fees werean ineffective means of imposing a sanction, and therefore there were no alternative meansof imposing any sanctions other than dismissing the case for failure to prosecute. Id. at 263(citing Emerson, 296 F.3d at 191) (“The District Court found no effective alternativesanctions to dismissal. It stated that an assessment of attorney’s fees was not a seriousconsideration given Emerson’s financial situation. Emerson proceeded in forma pauperis inthe District Court. We agree that monetary sanctions would not be an effectivealternative.”).In this case, however, Appellant is not proceeding pro se or in forma pauperis.Instead, Appellant is represented by counsel. This case is a classical example in which thecourt should have imposed severe sanctions upon Appellant’s counsel, and not Appellant. Itis unjust to punish a party who personally has done nothing wrong. The foregoing supportsanother reason why the first factor involving the party’s personal accountability could notbe weighed as a factor for dismissing this case.Appellant’s counsel maintains that the delays were a result of his failure to receivecorrespondences from both the court and Appellees. Even if this assertion is confirmed orproven, there is clear evidence on the record substantiating a conclusion that Appellant’s