Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00472/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00472-1/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 TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter arises on the Court’s review of the file. Plaintiff commenced this

action on or about March 10, 2008. (docket #1) On March 11, 2008, the Court issued a Notice

of Assignment and Order, docket #4, 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. As of today’s date, the Plaintiff has failed to file her written

election to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a United

States district judge. 

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). A dismissal for want of

prosecution under Rule 41(b) will stand unless it is an abuse of discretion. Link v. Wabash R.R.,

Case 2:08-cv-00472-LOA Document 6 Filed 04/01/08 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 -

370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962); Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Rule

41(b) specifically provides that the failure of the plaintiff to prosecute his or her claim is

grounds for involuntary dismissal of the action. Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d at 524. The

courts have read this rule to require prosecution with “reasonable diligence” if a plaintiff is to

avoid dismissal. Id. (citing Ballew v. Southern Pacific Co., 428 F.2d 787 (9th Cir. 1970)).

Because the period within which Plaintiff was to file her written consent or

election has passed, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing on or before Friday,

April 11, 2008 why her Complaint against Defendant University of Phoenix, Inc., should not

be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule

41(b), FED.R.CIV.P. Plaintiff may discharge this OSC by complying with the Court’s March

14, 2008 Order on or before April 8, 2008.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause in writing on or before Friday,

April 11, 2008 why her claims against Defendant University of Phoenix, Inc., should not be

dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with this Court’s Orders and failure to

prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b), FED.R.CIV.P.

DATED this 1st day of April, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00472-LOA Document 6 Filed 04/01/08 Page 2 of 2