Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01316/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01316-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

- 1 -

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jesse Wozniak,

Plaintiff

-vsT. Carpenter, et al.,

Defendant(s)

CV-07-1316-PHX-DGC (JI)

ORDER

Plaintiff has failed to return service packets and failed to respond to the Order to Show

Cause concerning such service packets entered September 13, 2007. Dkt. #5. Plaintiff has

a general duty to prosecute this case. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Pioche Mines

Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure provides that “[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these

rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action.” In Link v.

Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962), the Supreme Court recognized that a

federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to

prosecute, even though the language of Rule 41(b) appears to require a motion.

To determine whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal, the Court

must consider 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) (quoting Henderson

v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). Here, the first, second, and third factors

favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiff’s refusal to respond to court orders prevents this case

from proceeding. The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. The fifth factor

requires the Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative is available. The Court has

Case 2:07-cv-01316-DGC Document 6 Filed 10/12/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

tried, without success, the less drastic alternative of requiring Plaintiff to show cause. Given

Plaintiff’s refusal to respond, less drastic alternatives have proven to be futile. Because the

first, second, third, and fifth factors favor dismissal, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s action.

IT IS ORDERED that the reference of this case to the magistrate judge is withdrawn.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint (Dkt. #1) and this action are

dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b). The Clerk will

enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 12th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01316-DGC Document 6 Filed 10/12/07 Page 2 of 2