Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01869/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01869-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mark Lewellyn Lindsey, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Peter Michael Williams; Emilie Diane

Halladay; Ljubomir Peter Atanasoff;

John Robert Walston, Jr.; William Lee

Morris, Jr.; and Stephanie A. Stromfors, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1869-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against Defendants on September 9, 2009. Dkt. #1.

On March 3, 2010, Defendants Peter Williams and Emilie Halladay filed a motion to dismiss

the amended complaint (Dkt. #31) for failure to state a claim to relief. Dkt. #39. Defendant

Stephanie Stromfors filed a similar motion on March 8, 2010. Dkt. #44. Plaintiff failed to

respond to the motions within the time limit set forth in the rules of procedure. See LRCiv

7.2(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). The Court issued an order giving Plaintiff until April 30, 2010

to file responses. Dkt. #49. Plaintiff has failed to comply with that order. For reasons stated

below, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice.

The Court advised Plaintiff that even though he is proceeding pro se, he is still

required to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Local Rules of Civil

Procedure. Dkt. #49 at 1-2 (citations omitted). Plaintiff was provided information as to

where he could obtain copies of the rules. Id. at 2. The Court explicitly warned Plaintiff

Case 2:09-cv-01869-DGC Document 51 Filed 05/14/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

that if he did not file responses to the motions to dismiss by the April 30, 2010 deadline, the

Court would summarily grant the motions pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(i). Plaintiff was further

warned that if he failed to prosecute this action, or if he failed to comply with the rules or any

Court order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th

Cir.1992); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995)).

Before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with the rules

or an order, the Court must weigh 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. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (citing Henderson

v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).

The first two factors favor dismissal. Plaintiff filed this suit more than eight months

ago. Dkt. #1. He was served with the motions to dismiss in early March. Dkt. ##39, 44.

He has had more than two months to respond to the motions, but has failed to do so. Because

the Court and the public have a strong interest in judicial efficiency and the prompt resolution

of litigation, Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action weighs in favor of dismissal. The risk

of prejudice to Defendants also weighs in favor of dismissal. Defendants forced to incur

expenses and defend themselves in court are prejudiced by a plaintiff’s failure to respond to

motions or to prosecute the case in a timely and efficient manner. The fourth factor, as

always, weighs against dismissal. As for the fifth factor, the Court concludes that a dismissal

with prejudice would be unduly harsh. Dismissal without prejudice is, however, an

appropriate alternative sanction. The overall five-factor analysis favors dismissal. The

Court, therefore, will dismiss this action without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute,

his failure to follow the rules, and his failure to comply with the Court’s order (Dkt. #49). 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

Case 2:09-cv-01869-DGC Document 51 Filed 05/14/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

2. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 14th day of May, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01869-DGC Document 51 Filed 05/14/10 Page 3 of 3