Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_22-cv-00227/USCOURTS-azd-4_22-cv-00227-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Bonda,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Michael Eugene Martinez, Jr., et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-22-00227-TUC-RM

ORDER 

On March 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Application for Entry of Default Against 

Defendant Michael Eugene Martinez, Jr. (Doc. 27.) On April 25, 2023, the Clerk 

entered default against Defendant Martinez pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. (Doc. 28.) To date, Plaintiff has not taken any further action in this 

case.

A plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. Fidelity Phila. Trust Co. v. 

Pioche Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). The Court has the power to 

dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, either under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, Local Rule 41.1, or pursuant to its inherent authority. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 41(b) (action may be dismissed if plaintiff fails to prosecute); LRCiv 41.1 (“cases 

which have had neither proceedings nor pleadings, notices, or other documents filed for 

six (6) or more months may be dismissed by the Court for want of prosecution”); Link v. 

Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (“The authority of a court to dismiss sua 

sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power,’ 

Case 4:22-cv-00227-RM Document 29 Filed 11/20/23 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

governed . . . by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as 

to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”); Pearson v. Dennison, 353 

F.2d 24, 28 (9th Cir. 1965) (“A court has power to dismiss an action for want of 

prosecution on its own motion, both under Rule 41(b) and under its local rule . . . and 

even in the absence of such rules.”). In determining whether to dismiss a case for lack of 

prosecution, the Court must weigh five factors: “‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious 

resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice 

to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits and 

(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th 

Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 

1986)).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of the date this Order is filed, 

Plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute 

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and LRCiv 41.1.

Dated this 17th day of November, 2023.

Case 4:22-cv-00227-RM Document 29 Filed 11/20/23 Page 2 of 2