Garcia v. Glendale Police Department et al

Filing 128

AMENDED ORDER re: 127 Order. VACATING Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/19/2014 at 4:00 PM. to permit Plaintiff time to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute (Doc. 119 ). ORDERED that Plaintiff shall respond to the motion to dismiss (Doc. 119 ) on or before 2/28/2014. ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to timely respond to the motion to dismiss (Doc. 119 ), the Court will deem Plaintiff's failure to respond to be Plaintiff's consent to the motion be ing granted under Local Rule Civil 7.2(i). Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 2/10/2014. (Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff Robert A. Garcia on 2/10/2014). (Order Amended to correct text vacating Final pretrial conference date of 2/19/2014, not 2/29/2014.)(TLB)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Robert A. Garcia, No. CV 11-02260-PHX-JAT 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 Glendale Police Department, et al., ORDER 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is sole remaining Defendant Robert Solomon’s Motion to Dismiss pro se Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 16 Civil Procedure 41(b).1 (Doc. 119). Defendant alleges that, in contravention of the 17 Court’s previous Order (Doc. 69), Plaintiff has again2 refused to confer or communicate 18 with Defendant’s counsel to craft and file various joint pretrial materials. (Doc. 119 at 2– 19 3; see Plaintiff’s January 10, 2010 “Notice of Incommunicada” [sic], Doc. 104 20 (proclaiming that Plaintiff—who is incarcerated—will no longer send, sign for, or accept 21 mail)). 22 The Court has previously warned Plaintiff that his failure to follow the Court’s 23 Orders and participate in his case is grounds for dismissal. (Doc. 17 at 10 (“If Plaintiff 24 fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these warnings, the 25 Court may dismiss this action without further notice.”); Doc. 65 at 2 (“Plaintiff has 26 27 28 1 Rule 41(b) provides that “[i]f 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.” F.R. Civ. P. 41(b). 2 (See Doc. 65; Doc. 119 at 2). 1 disregarded the Court’s order warning him of the consequences of failing to timely 2 respond. 3 including complying with all requirements of this Court. In particular, Plaintiff must 4 comply with a new final pretrial order setting the Final Pretrial Conference that will 5 follow.”) (emphasis added)). Consequently, the Court is inclined to grant Defendant’s 6 Motion. However, Dismissal for failure to prosecute is a “harsh penalty and is to be 7 8 9 10 11 12 The Court will give Plaintiff one further opportunity to proceed to trial imposed only in extreme circumstances.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). Before dismissing Plaintiff’s case, the Court must weigh several 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.” Id. (citing Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984); Mir v. Fosburg, 13 14 15 16 17 706 F.2d 916, 918 (9th Cir. 1983). Consequently, the Court will permit Plaintiff an opportunity to respond to Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff is cautioned that if he fails to timely respond pursuant to this Order, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. // 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // -2- 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED that the Final Pretrial Conference, set for February 19, 2014 at 3 4:00pm, is vacated to permit Plaintiff time to respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss 4 for failure to prosecute (Doc. 119). 5 6 7 8 9 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall respond to the motion to dismiss (Doc. 119) on or before February 28, 2014. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to timely respond to the motion to dismiss (Doc. 119), the Court will deem Plaintiff's failure to respond to be Plaintiff’s consent to the motion being granted under Local Rule Civil 7.2(i). Dated this 10th day of February, 2014. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?