Valenzuela v. Corizon Health Incorporated et al

Filing 42

ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Fallhoe are dismissed without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to strike from the docket, Doc. 40 . (See document for complete details). Signed by Judge Michael T Liburdi on 10/13/20. (SLQ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-19-05167-PHX-MTL (MHB)

Corizon Health Incorporated, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In

16

its screening order, the Court ordered Defendants Schmidt and Fallhoe to answer Count

17

Two of the Complaint, and dismissed the remaining claims and Defendants without

18

prejudice. The Court also stated, if Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of

19

the summons or complete service of the Summons and Complaint on a Defendant within

20

90 days of the filing of the Complaint or within 60 days of the filing of the screening order,

21

whichever is later, the action may be dismissed as to each Defendant not served.

22

The record revealing that Defendants Schmidt and Fallhoe had not been served, the

23

Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure

24

to serve pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a request for service

25

assistance.

26

In an effort to move this matter forward, the Court required Corizon Health, Inc., to

27

advise the Court and Plaintiff regarding this matter. The Court stated, “[i]f Defendants

28

Schmidt and Fallhoe are still employed with Corizon Health, Inc., it shall provide Plaintiff

1

with their current work locations. If said Defendants are no longer employed with Corizon

2

Health, Inc., it shall provide their last known home addresses to the Court UNDER SEAL.”

3

Corizon complied with the Court’s Order and Defendant Schmidt was served on

4

September 11, 2020. However, the record reflects that service was returned unexecuted as

5

to Defendant Fallhoe.

6

Therefore, it appearing that reasonable efforts have been made to provide Plaintiff

7

with the opportunity to effect service; Defendant Fallhoe has not been served; and the time

8

for completing service has expired, the Court will determine whether dismissal of this

9

matter as to Defendants Fallhoe is appropriate.

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

action.” In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962), the Supreme Court

15

recognized that a federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte

16

for failure to prosecute, even though the language of Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of

17

Civil Procedure appears to require a motion from a party. Moreover, in appropriate

18

circumstances, the Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute even without

19

notice or hearing. See id. at 633.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the

24

availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988)

25

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

26

these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the fourth factor cuts

27

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

28

of lesser sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnson, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990).

-2-

1

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

2

Defendant Fallhoe prevents the case against him from proceeding in the foreseeable future.

3

The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. The fifth factor requires the Court

4

to consider whether a less drastic alternative is available. The Court has already made

5

reasonable efforts to provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to effect service.

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

the Court finds that a dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh. Plaintiff’s

10

claims against Defendant Fallhoe will therefore be dismissed without prejudice pursuant

11

to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

12

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

13

of Civil Procedure Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Fallhoe are dismissed without

14

prejudice.

15
16
17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to strike from the
docket, Doc. 40.
Dated this 13th day of October, 2020.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-