Matthews v. Ryan et al

Filing 20

ORDER - Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Plaintiff's claims against the members of Defendant Utilization Management Team are dismissed without prejudice. See document for complete details. Signed by Judge Michael T Liburdi on 10/07/2019. (RMV)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Donnie Ray Matthews,

10

Plaintiff,

11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-18-03740-PHX-MTL (MHB)

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff Donnie Ray Matthews filed a pro se civil rights Second Amended

16

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 9). In its screening order, the Court

17

ordered Defendants Ryan and Corizon to answer the Second Amended Complaint, and

18

dismissed the remaining claims and Defendants without prejudice. The Court also stated

19

that “[w]ithin 120 days from the filing date of this Order, Plaintiff must file a ‘Notice of

20

Substitution,’ substituting actual names of members of Defendant Utilization

21

Management Team. The Court may dismiss without prejudice Defendant Utilization

22

Management Team if Plaintiff fails to timely file a notice of substitution, unless Plaintiff

23

seeks and is granted an extension of time.”

24
25

Plaintiff has not moved for an extension of time, and to date, Plaintiff has not filed
a notice of substitution – and the time for doing so has expired.

26

Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. See Fidelity Philadelphia

27

Trust Co. v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). Rule 41(b)

28

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[f]or failure of the plaintiff to

1

prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for

2

dismissal of an action.” In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962),

3

the Supreme Court recognized that a federal district court has the inherent power to

4

dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute, even though the language of Rule 41(b)

5

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure appears to require a motion from a party.

6

Moreover, in appropriate circumstances, the Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to

7

prosecute even without notice or hearing. See id. at 633.

8

In determining whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal, the

9

Court must weigh the following five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious

10

resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice

11

to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and

12

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

13

Cir. 1988) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). “The

14

first two of these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the fourth

15

factor cuts against a default or dismissal sanction. Thus the key factors are prejudice and

16

availability of lesser sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnson, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir.

17

1990).

18

Here, the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal. Plaintiff’s failure to

19

comply with Court Orders, file a notice of substitution, and ultimately serve the members

20

of Defendant Utilization Management Team, prevents the case against them from

21

proceeding in the foreseeable future. The fourth factor, as always, weighs against

22

dismissal. The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative

23

is available. The Court has already made reasonable efforts to provide Plaintiff with the

24

time needed to file a notice of substitution.

25

The Court finds that only one less drastic sanction is realistically available. Rule

26

41(b) provides that a dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as an adjudication upon

27

the merits “[u]nless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies.” In the instant

28

case, the Court finds that a dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh.

-2-

1

Plaintiff’s claims against the members of Defendant Utilization Management Team will

2

therefore be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of

3

Civil Procedure.

4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules

5

of Civil Procedure Plaintiff’s claims against the members of Defendant Utilization

6

Management Team are dismissed without prejudice.

7

Dated this 7th day of October, 2019.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-