Page:Gripe v. City of Enid.pdf/8

 have held that "Rule 41(b) involuntary dismissals should be determined by reference to the criteria." , 40 F.3d 337, 341 (10th Cir. 1994). Similarly, we conclude that dismissal as a sanction under Rules 16(f) and 37(b)(2)(C) should ordinarily be evaluated under the same factors. (finding "no principled distinction between sanctions imposed for discovery violations and sanctions imposed for noncompliance with other orders"). The factors do not create a rigid test but are simply criteria for the court to consider. , 965 F.2d at 921. The record demonstrates that the district court’s decision to dismiss the action was based on the appropriate considerations. The district court (1) noted on at least two occasions that plaintiff’s failure to follow court orders and rules had inconvenienced and prejudiced the defendants and the court; (2) twice clearly warned plaintiff that failure to follow court orders and rules could result in dismissal of his case; and (3) found that a sanction less severe than dismissal would not be effective.

As for the remaining criterion mentioned in —"the culpability of the litigant," id. at 921—the record contains no direct evidence regarding what plaintiff knew of his attorney’s derelictions. Nevertheless, the district court dealt with this criterion when it said: "[D]ismissal does not unjustly penalize the individual plaintiff in this case in light of the repeated and documented failure of -8-