Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-00194/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-00194-1/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

KAB

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Taheny,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

David Shinn, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-23-00194-PHX-JAT (ASB)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff John Taheny, who is in the custody of the Arizona Department of 

Corrections, brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Arizona state 

law. (Doc. 1.) 

Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 43), and Plaintiff did not 

file a response.

1 Although summary disposition is not appropriate in ruling on a Motion 

for Summary Judgment,2it appears that Plaintiff may have abandoned prosecution of this 

action. Accordingly, the Court will require Plaintiff to show cause why this action should 

not be dismissed for failure to prosecute by responding to this Order and indicating he is 

still interested in prosecuting this action. 

1 The Court provided notice to Plaintiff pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 

962 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) regarding the requirements of a response. (Doc. 44.)

2 See, e.g., Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 2013) (Rule 56 

does not permit a court to grant summary judgment by default).

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JAT-ASB Document 45 Filed 12/05/24 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

Rule 41(b) allows a court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, failure to 

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to comply with the court’s local 

rules, or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash 

R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (a court’s authority to dismiss for lack of 

prosecution is necessary to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to 

avoid congestion in the calendars of the district courts); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. 

United States Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (court may dismiss under 

Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or comply with rules of civil procedure or the court’s 

orders); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may 

dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court).3

Plaintiff will be given twenty days to file a “response” to this Order explaining that 

he intends to proceed with the prosecution of this action. If Plaintiff does not file a 

response, this action will be dismissed without further notice to Plaintiff. 

IT IS ORDERED that within twenty days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff must 

file a response to this Order indicating that he intends to proceed with the prosecution of 

this action. If Plaintiff does not respond to this Order, this action will be dismissed for 

failure to prosecute without further prior notice to Plaintiff. 

Dated this 5th day of December, 2024.

3

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

action, 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 v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 

1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 

(9th Cir. 1986)).

Case 2:23-cv-00194-JAT-ASB Document 45 Filed 12/05/24 Page 2 of 2