Edwards v. Mesa Municipal Court et al

Filing 15

ORDER - 1. This action is dismissed without prejudice. 2. The Clerk is directed enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/28/15. (LAD)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Corey Darnell Edwards, Plaintiff, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-14-01676-PHX-DGC Mesa Municipal Court, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against Defendants in Maricopa County Superior 16 Court, and Defendants removed the case to this Court. Doc. 1 On July 31, 2014, 17 Defendants Mesa Municipal Court and the Mesa Police Department (“Mesa Defendants”) 18 filed a motion for a more definite statement. Doc. 4. On August 1, 2014, Defendant 19 Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”) filed a motion to dismiss. Doc. 5. 20 Plaintiff failed to respond to the motions within the time limit set by the rules of 21 procedure. See LRCiv 7.2(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). The Court issued an order giving 22 Plaintiff until September 29, 2014 to file responses. Doc. 6. The Court warned Plaintiff 23 that failure to comply with the order would result in the Court summarily granting the 24 motions. Plaintiff filed a response to the Mesa Defendants’ motion for more definite 25 statement (Doc. 7), but he did not respond to MCSO’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff did 26 file two “motions for judgment.” Docs. 9, 10. 27 The Court entered an order on November 18, 2014, granting the Mesa Defendants’ 28 motion for a more definite statement, granting MCSO’s motion to dismiss, denying 1 Plaintiff’s motions for judgment, and ordering Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by 2 December 22, 2014. Doc. 12. Plaintiff was warned “that if he fails to file an amended 3 complaint by December 22, 2014, the case will be dismissed.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff was also 4 given guidance regarding the content of his amended complaint. Id. at 4-6. 5 Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s order. More than six weeks have 6 passed since the Court’s deadline, and no amended complaint has been filed. Plaintiff 7 has filed another motion, apparently directed to MCSO, “for more Details.” Doc. 14. 8 Before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with an 9 order, the Court must weigh five factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution 10 of litigation, (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice to the 11 defendants, (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the 12 availability of less drastic sanctions. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 13 1995). 14 The first three factors favor dismissal. Plaintiff filed this suit more than six 15 months ago. Doc. 1. He failed to respond to motions filed by Defendants, was ordered to 16 respond by the Court, and yet still failed to respond to one of the motions. Plaintiff was 17 ordered to file an amended complaint on or before December 22, 2014, and was warned 18 that his case would be dismissed if he failed to do so. Doc. 12. Plaintiff has not 19 complied. The Court cannot be in the business of repeatedly having to prompt a litigant 20 to follow court orders or the local rules. Because the Court and the public have a strong 21 interest in judicial efficiency and the prompt resolution of cases, Plaintiff’s failure to 22 prosecute weighs in favor of dismissal. His failure also risks prejudice to Defendants. 23 They have been forced to incur expenses and defend themselves in this case, and are 24 prejudiced by Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the case in a timely and efficient manner. 25 The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. As for the fifth factor, the 26 Court concludes that a dismissal with prejudice would be unduly harsh for this pro se 27 litigant. Dismissal without prejudice is an appropriate alternative sanction. Because 28 Plaintiff has twice failed to comply with Court orders and has failed to file an amended -2- 1 complaint after being directly warned that his case would be dismissed, the Court will 2 dismiss this action without prejudice. 3 IT IS ORDERED: 4 1. This action is dismissed without prejudice. 5 2. The Clerk is directed enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action. 6 Dated this 28th day of January, 2015. 7 8 9 10 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?