Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02581/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02581-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

Loren Balthazor, a married man,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Union Pacific Railroad Company, a

foreign corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-2581-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Loren Balthazor commenced this action in December 2009 by filing a pro se

complaint against his former employer, Union Pacific Railroad Company. Doc. 1. On

May 24, 2010, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 6. In an order dated July 14, 2010, the Court gave

Plaintiff until August 6, 2010 to file either an amended complaint or a response to the

motion to dismiss. Doc. 7. Plaintiff has failed to meet that deadline. 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. Doc. 7 at 1-2. Plaintiff was provided information as to where he could obtain

copies of the rules and how to file a complaint that satisfies the pleading requirements of

Rule 8. Id. at 2-3. The Court explicitly warned Plaintiff that if he did not file either an

amended complaint or a response to the motion to dismiss by the August 6, 2010 deadline,

the Court would summarily grant the motion pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(i). Id. at 2. Plaintiff

Case 2:09-cv-02581-DGC Document 8 Filed 08/26/10 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 -

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. Id. at 3.

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 defendant, (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and

(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.

1995); Valley Eng’rs, Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998).

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

ago. Doc. 1. He has had more than three months to file an amended complaint or otherwise

respond to the motion to dismiss (Doc. 6), 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 Defendant 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 (Doc. 7).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

2. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 26th day of August, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02581-DGC Document 8 Filed 08/26/10 Page 2 of 2