Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00472/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00472-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

Shelley Chambers Thompson,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

University of Phoenix, Inc., an Arizona

corporation,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-0472-PHX-LOA

ORDER

On March 11, 2008 the Court issued a Notice of Assignment (docket #1) ordering

Plaintiff to file on or before March 28, 2008 her written election to either consent to

magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a United States District Judge. 

Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with these orders and any of them may result in

the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41, FED.R.CIV.P..

On April 1, 2008, this Court entered an Order (docket #6) directing Plaintiff to show

cause in writing on or before Friday, April 11, 2008 why her claims against Defendant as

appearing in the caption of Plaintiff’s Complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice

for failure to comply with the orders of this Court.

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s March 28, 2008 and April 1, 2008

Orders. Therefore, sanctions are appropriate pursuant to Local Rule 83.1(f)(1), LRCiv,

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court of the District of Arizona, effective

Case 2:08-cv-00472-LOA Document 7 Filed 04/16/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

December 1, 2007. In view of Plaintiff’s repeated non-compliance, the Court will dismiss

Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice.

Dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with the procedural rules of the court

is within the court’s discretion. Original Ballet Russe, Ltd. v. Ballet Theatre, Inc., 133 F.2d

187, 188 (2nd Cir. 1943); Sergio Bautista et al. v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3rd 837 (9th Cir.

2000). Moreover, district courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and in the

exercise of that power may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, dismissal of a

case. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). "In determining whether to

dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order, district courts must weigh five

factors: (1) the public interest; (2) the court's need to manage the docket; (3) the risk of

prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits;

and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives." Id. at 1260-61.

 After considering and weighing all five factors to determine if dismissal is

appropriate for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders, the Court concludes

dismissal without prejudice of the Plaintiff’s Complaint is appropriate and just under the

circumstances of this case. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

DATED this 16th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00472-LOA Document 7 Filed 04/16/08 Page 2 of 2