In re Patrick Bulmer

Filing 25

ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/26/14. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PAUL DEN BESTE,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:13-cv-01893-TLN

Apellant,
v.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

PATRICK BULMER ALSO KNOWN AS
CALIFORNIA RECEIVERSHIP
SERVICES,
Defendant.

17
18

The Court has issued numerous orders directing Appellant Paul Beste (“Appellant”) to

19

comply with the local rules governing the Eastern District of California as well as this Court’s

20

orders. (See ECF Nos. 17, 18, 22 and 24.) On April 16, 2014, the Court ordered Appellant to file

21

his opening brief within twenty-one (21) days. (Order, ECF No. 18.) Appellant failed to comply.

22

Accordingly, the Court issued an order to show cause on June 23, 2014, as to why Appellant had

23

not adhered to the Court’s order. (Min. Oder, ECF No. 22.) On July, 7, 2014, Appellant

24

responded and, in turn, the Court afforded Appellant one last opportunity to comply. Thus, on

25

July 11, 2014, this Court ordered Appellant to file his case brief with the District Court within

26

fourteen (14) days. In its Order, the Court warned Appellant that should he once again fail to file

27

his brief that this matter would be dismissed. The time for compliance has come and gone and

28

the Court is still not in receipt of Appellant’s case brief.
1

1

“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice because

2

of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.” Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626,

3

629 (1962). The Ninth Circuit has set forth five factors that a district court must consider before

4

dismissing a case for failure to prosecute:

5
6
7

[1] the court’s need to manage its docket, [2] the public interest in
expeditious resolution of litigation, [3] the risk of prejudice to
defendants from delay, [4] the policy favoring disposition of cases
on their merits.

8

Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 651 (9th Cir. 1991). For the reasons set forth

9

below, the Court finds that these factors weigh in favor of dismissing this case.

10

First, the Court has an inherent need to manage its docket. Appellant filed this case in

11

September of 2013, and still has not filed his opening brief. In contrast, Appellee has been

12

diligent in its defense. (See Appellee’s Brief, ECF No. 20.) Consequently, the Court finds that

13

this factor weighs in favor of dismissing this case. Second, the public’s interest in expeditious

14

resolution of litigation also favors dismissing this case because the Court is wasting its time and

15

resources attempting to compel Appellant’s cooperation in litigating his own case. Third,

16

Appellant’s repeated failure to respond to correspondence prevents Appellees from seeking some

17

sort of resolution. Finally, although the disposition of cases based on their merits is preferred, it

18

is unlikely that such is an option here. The Court simply cannot move forward without

19

Appellant’s assistance.

20

Thus, for the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds that all four factors support

21

dismissing Appellant’s case. As such the Court hereby DISMISSES all pending claims against

22

Appellees in this action. This case is CLOSED.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 26, 2014

25
26
27

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

28
2