Calhoon v. Motel 6 Operating L.P., et al.,

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/4/2024 DISMISSING this action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court order. CASE CLOSED. (Clemente Licea, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Wayne S. Calhoon, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:20-cv-2046-KJM-JDP Plaintiff, ORDER v. Motel 6 Operating L.P., et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Wayne Calhoon filed this civil rights action on October 13, 2020. See Compl., 18 ECF No. 1. Defendants did not appear, and plaintiff took no further action to litigate this case. 19 Therefore, the court directed plaintiff to file a declaration to update the court on the case status. 20 See Min. Order (Apr. 7, 2021), ECF No. 6. Plaintiff’s counsel responded informing the court this 21 case was related to another case before the undersigned. See Decl., ECF No. 7. Accordingly, the 22 court directed plaintiff to file a notice of related cases as required under Local Rule 123. See 23 Min. Order (Apr. 23, 2021), ECF No. 8. Plaintiff complied, see Related Case Notice, ECF No. 9, 24 and the court related the two cases, see Prior Order (June 21, 2021), ECF No. 10. 25 However, after filing the notice of related cases on April 19, 2021, plaintiff took no 26 further action for nearly two years. Accordingly, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause within 27 fourteen days why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution under Federal Rule 28 of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Prior Order (Mar. 13, 2023), ECF No. 11. Over a year has passed 1 1 and plaintiff has filed no response. Given this, the court now considers whether to dismiss this 2 case for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court order. 3 In deciding to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order, the court considers 4 five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 5 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 6 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. 7 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 8 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (same standard for dismissal based on failure to prosecute). The 9 court has considered the factors and finds they weigh in favor of dismissal. First, plaintiff’s 10 failure to respond to this court’s order to show cause indicates plaintiff has abandoned this case 11 and the court cannot wait indefinitely for plaintiff to respond. Second, plaintiff’s lack of 12 prosecution has delayed resolution of this case and the court cannot continue to expend scarce 13 judicial resources on an abandoned case. Finally, less drastic alternatives are not available, and 14 plaintiff has been given ample opportunity to comply with this court’s order to show cause why 15 this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. 16 In sum, given plaintiff’s abandonment of this case and lack of response to court order, the 17 court finds dismissal is proper. This action is dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to 18 comply with court order. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 4, 2024. 2

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?