Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04267/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04267-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 441
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Voting
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN J.D. STUART,

Plaintiff,

v.

DNC SERVICES CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.16-cv-04267-HSG 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE 

TO PROSECUTE

Re: Dkt. No. 10

On July 28, 2016, pro se plaintiff Steven J.D. Stuart filed his complaint against Hillary 

Rodham Clinton (“HRC”) and DNC Services, Corp. (“DNC”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Dkt. 

No. 1. Plaintiff’s complaint sought the following relief: (1) injunctive relief preventing 

Defendants from nominating and promoting HRC to run for President “in any election” and 

“specifically” in November 2016; (2) declaratory relief determining whether HRC was qualified to 

be President and had the right to run, and whether the DNC had the right to nominate and promote 

her; (3) costs of suit; and (4) other appropriate relief determined by the Court. Id. The Court 

granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on September 16, 2016. Dkt. No. 8. 

On September 30, 2016, the Clerk sent a letter requesting that Plaintiff submit the 

addresses of the defendants so that the United States Marshal could complete service. Dkt. No. 9. 

The letter stated that its bottom portion should be used for that purpose and enclosed a selfaddressed postage-paid envelope. Id. Plaintiff did not respond or file anything with the Court.

Plaintiff failed to file a case management statement for the case management conference 

scheduled for December 6, 2016. See Dkt. No. 7 (setting case management conference for 

December 6, 2016, and setting deadline of November 29, 2016 to file case management 

statement). On December 5, 2016, still having heard nothing from Plaintiff, the Court vacated the 

next day’s case management conference, ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his case should not 

Case 4:16-cv-04267-HSG Document 11 Filed 12/29/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and ordered Plaintiff to respond by December 19, 2016 to 

avoid dismissal of his case. See Dkt. No. 10 (“Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why 

this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff shall respond to this Order in a 

written statement of no more than two pages by December 19, 2016. If Plaintiff fails to respond to 

this Order, the Court will dismiss the action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41.”). Plaintiff has missed the deadline to file his response. Indeed, Plaintiff has made no filing 

whatsoever in this case during the nearly five months since he filed his complaint.

The Court, having carefully considered the five factors set forth in Malone v. United States 

Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987),1finds that notwithstanding the public policy 

favoring the disposition of actions on their merits, the Court’s need to manage its docket and the 

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation require dismissal of this action. Given

Plaintiff’s lack of response to the Court’s prior orders, there is no appropriate less drastic sanction. 

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b) for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

 

1

“A district court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to 

comply with a court order: (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. It is 

not necessary for a district court to make explicit findings to show that it has considered these 

factors.” Malone, 833 F.2d at 130 (quotation marks and citations omitted).

Case 4:16-cv-04267-HSG Document 11 Filed 12/29/16 Page 2 of 2