Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01034/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01034-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mia Taylor
Plaintiff
Wal-Mart Corporation
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 

Mia Taylor, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Wal-Mart Corporation, 

Defendant.

No. CV14-1034 PHX DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against Defendant on April 10, 2014 in Maricopa 

County Superior Court, and Defendant subsequently removed the case to this Court. 

Doc. 1. On May 21, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted. Doc. 10. Plaintiff did not file a timely response. The 

Court’s staff called Plaintiff to advise her of the need to file a response, but she did not 

return the Court’s call. 

 On May 22, 2014, the Court entered an order that required the parties to confer 

and prepare a Rule 26(f) report and appear for a case management conference on 

August 5, 2014. Doc. 11. The order directed Plaintiff to initiate efforts to prepare the 

report. When Plaintiff failed to initiate preparation of the report, defense counsel called 

Plaintiff on numerous occasions, sent her emails advising her of the Court’s deadlines 

and of the need to prepare a joint report, and even provided her with a copy of the Court’s 

May 22 order (which Plaintiff had also received in a direct mailing from the Court). 

Plaintiff refused to participate in preparation of a Rule 26(f) report told defense counsel 

to stop contacting her. Doc. 13. Plaintiff did not appear at the case management 

Case 2:14-cv-01034-DGC Document 15 Filed 08/06/14 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 

conference on August 5, 2014. 

 Plaintiff has a duty to prosecute this case. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co. v. 

Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). Not only has she 

failed to prosecute, she has disregarded deadlines set by the rules and by court orders and 

has refused to communicate with defense counsel and the Court. 

 Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[f]or failure of 

the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant 

may move for dismissal of an action.” 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 

Rule 41(b) appears to require a motion. Moreover, in appropriate circumstances, the 

Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute even without notice or hearing. 

Id. at 633. 

 In determining whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal, 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 merits; and 

(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th 

Cir. 1988). Here, the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal. Plaintiff’s failures 

to cooperate, communicate, or obey court deadlines and orders prevent 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. Because Plaintiff refuses to communicate or comply, the Court 

can think of no alternative to dismissal. 

 The Court also concludes that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) is well 

taken. Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 U.S.C. § 242 (if there is a private 

right of action under that statute) each require that the defendant act under color of law. 

Case 2:14-cv-01034-DGC Document 15 Filed 08/06/14 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 

The actions complained of by Plaintiff are those of a private corporation, not actions 

taken under color of law. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) is granted. This action is 

dismissed under Rule 41(b) and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. 

 2. The Clerk is directed to terminate this case. 

 Dated this 6th day of August, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-01034-DGC Document 15 Filed 08/06/14 Page 3 of 3