Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08097/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08097-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

 The Court uses the full correct name of Wal-mart, rather than its incorrect name.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bartlett Elliott, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-8097-PCT-LOA

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, doc. 11,

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Both parties have consented in writing to magistrate judge

jurisdiction in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. (Docs. 7, 13) For the reasons set forth

below, the Court will grant this Motion and will dismiss this action with prejudice.

I. Background

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action June 9, 2010 against Defendant

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”).1

 (Doc. 1) Defendant Wal-Mart subsequently waived

service of process and filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.

Civ.P. 12(b)(6). (Doc. 11) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a response to the Motion to

Dismiss on or before September 13, 2010. (Doc. 16) Although the September 13, 2010

deadline passed, Plaintiff neither responded to the motion to dismiss nor otherwise commuCase 3:10-cv-08097-LOA Document 20 Filed 09/28/10 Page 1 of 4
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 -

nicated with the Court. In view of Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Motion to Dismiss, on

September 17, 2010, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause on or before September 24,

2010 why his Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Court orders. 

(Doc. 18) On September 24, 2010, the Order to Show Cause was returned to the Court as

“undeliverable,” marked “unable to forward.” (Doc. 19) Plaintiff has not notified the Court

of his current address in violation of Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.3(d). In view of

Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Motion to Dismiss and failure to notify the Court of his

current address, the Court will consider whether to dismiss this action. 

II. Motion to Dismiss/ Failure to Comply with Court Orders 

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i), Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court

for the District of Arizona, provides that “if the unrepresented party or counsel does not

serve and file the required answering memoranda [to a motion] . . ., such non-compliance

may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the

matter summarily.” L.R.Civ. 7.2(i). In view of Local Rule 7.2(i), the Court deems Plaintiff’s

failure to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as his consent to granting that Motion. 

Additionally, Plaintiff’s failure to notify the Court of his current address supports

dismissal of this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). 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 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

Case 3:10-cv-08097-LOA Document 20 Filed 09/28/10 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

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)). 

“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); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1259, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating that the first

two dismissal factors favor dismissal and noting that “it is incumbent upon [the Ninth

Circuit] to preserve the district courts’ power to manage their dockets without being subject

to endless vexatious noncompliance of litigants. . . .”). 

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

failure to comply with Court orders 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. The Court has already

ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed and warned him that

this matter could be dismissed if Plaintiff failed to comply with Court orders. The Ninth

Circuit recognizes that “a district court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey the

court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the ‘consideration of alternatives’ requirement.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262 (citing Malone v. United States Postal Service, 833 F.2d

128, 132-33 (9th Cir. 1987)). Moreover, because Plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of

his current address, further orders to show cause would be fruitless. 

Rule 41(b) provides that a dismissal for failure to prosecute or failure to comply

with court orders operates as an adjudication upon the merits, “[u]nless the dismissal order

states otherwise.” The Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate in this case in

view of Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Motion to Dismiss which, pursuant to LRCiv

7.2(i), is deemed as consent to granting that motion.

The Court has also considered the substantive merits of the Motion. Even if the

Court were to allow Plaintiff to amend his Complaint to comply with Rule 8(a)(2), Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), it

Case 3:10-cv-08097-LOA Document 20 Filed 09/28/10 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

appears as though Plaintiff is alleging a Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Of course, Wal-Mart

cannot be held liable for alleged violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights because

Wal-Mart is not a state actor. Section 1983 allows individuals to recover damages and other

relief for deprivations of constitutional rights that occur under color of state law. Parratt v.

Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474

U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation

of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and must show that the

alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v.

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988). Clearly, Wal-Mart is a non-governmental corporation, is not a

state actor and was not acting “under the color of state law” at all times alleged in the

Complaint. Because amendment of the Complaint to allege a § 1983 action would be futile,

the Court’s dismissal will be with prejudice.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED

and that Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court

shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 28th day of September, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-08097-LOA Document 20 Filed 09/28/10 Page 4 of 4