Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04665/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04665-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fair Market Housing Coalition
Plaintiff
United States Department of the Interior
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Fair Market Housing Coalition,

Plaintiff,

v. 

United States Department of the Interior,

Defendant.

No. CV-19-04665-PHX-ESW

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATIONN

TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. McNAMEE, SENIOR UNITED STATES 

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:

On July 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. 1). Proof of Service (Doc. 8) 

was filed on August 27, 2019, reflecting service on the Attorney General of the United 

States on behalf of Defendant United States Department of the Interior on July 23, 2019. 

No answer or responsive pleading has been filed. 

On November 15, 2019, the Court issued an Order requiring the Plaintiff to show 

cause no later than December 16, 2019 why the case should not be dismissed without 

further notice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (Doc. 9). As of 

the date of the filing this Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has failed to respond to 

the Court’s Order. No responsive pleading or entry of default has been filed. The Order 

was not returned as undeliverable. 

Case 2:19-cv-04665-ESW Document 10 Filed 01/29/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

I. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute its case. See Fidelity Phila. Trust Co. v. 

Pioche Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978) (“It is a well established rule 

that the duty to move a case is on the plaintiff and not on the defendant or the court.”). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that “if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or 

to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action 

or any claim against it.” 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 Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) appears to require a motion from a party. Moreover, in 

appropriate circumstances, the Court may dismiss a pleading for failure to prosecute even 

without notice or hearing. Link, 370 U.S. 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

erits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440 (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).

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

failure to abide by the Court’s Order 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 undersigned 

finds that only one less drastic sanction is realistically available. Rule 41(b) provides that 

a dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as an adjudication upon the merits “[u]nless 

the dismissal order states otherwise.” The Court may dismiss the case without prejudice.

Case 2:19-cv-04665-ESW Document 10 Filed 01/29/20 Page 2 of 3
- 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

Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s Order to show cause and the time to 

do so has passed. Plaintiff has abandoned its case. The undersigned will recommend 

dismissal of this case without prejudice. 

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed 

without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to abide by the Court’s Order (Doc. 9) and 

prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (1) 

should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. The parties shall have 

fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to 

file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

6, 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the 

objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the 

District Court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of 

the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of 

the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s 

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

Dated this 29th day of January, 2020.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:19-cv-04665-ESW Document 10 Filed 01/29/20 Page 3 of 3