Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00394/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00394-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Donnell Thomas,

Plaintiff

-vsWexford Medical, et al.,

Defendants.

CV-15-0394-PHX-JJT (JFM)

Report and Recommendation

On August 18, 2015, the Court construed Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment 

(Doc. 54) as a motion for entry of default. The Court granted that motion, directed the 

Clerk to enter default against Defendant Nwaohia, the sole remaining defendant, and

gave Plaintiff 14 days to move for default judgment against Nwaohia. (Order 8/18/15, 

Doc. 55.) That deadline passed, and Plaintiff did not move for entry of default judgment 

or otherwise respond.

Accordingly, on September 9, 2015, the Court issued its Order to Show Cause 

(Doc. 57) noting Plaintiff’s failure to pursue default judgment, and directing Plaintiff to 

show cause within 14 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute. Plaintiff has not responded.

Plaintiff has the 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 "[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or 

to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the 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) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure appears to require a motion from a party. Moreover, in 

Case 2:15-cv-00394-JJT Document 59 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 3
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

appropriate circumstances, the Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute 

even without notice or hearing. Id. at 633.

In determining whether Plaintiff's failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of the 

case, the Court must weigh the following 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, 856 F.2d at 1440 

(quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). "The first two of 

these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the fourth factor cuts 

against a default or dismissal sanction. Thus the key factors are prejudice and 

availability of lesser sanctions." Wanderer v. Johnson, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 

1990).

Here, the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiff's 

failure to respond to the Court’s orders and to pursue his claims against the sole 

defendant prevents the case from proceeding in the foreseeable future. The fourth factor, 

as always, weighs against dismissal. 

The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative is 

available. Given Plaintiff’s apparent abandonment of the case, certain alternatives are 

bound to be futile. The Court finds that only one less drastic sanction is realistically 

available. Rule 41(b) provides that a dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as an 

adjudication upon the merits "[u]nless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise 

specifies." In the instant case, a dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh. 

The Complaint and this action should, therefore, be dismissed without prejudice 

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

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to Rule 41, Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the 

Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Case 2:15-cv-00394-JJT Document 59 Filed 09/30/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATION

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. 

However, pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall 

have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within 

which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have 

fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file 

objections to any findings or recommendations of the Magistrate Judge will be 

considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues, see United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc), and will constitute 

a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or 

judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Robbins v. 

Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).

Dated: September 30, 2015

15-0394o Order 15 09 29 re RR re OSC FTP.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00394-JJT Document 59 Filed 09/30/15 Page 3 of 3