Stuart v. DNC Services Corporation et al

Filing 11

ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE ***Civil Case Terminated.*** Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 12/29/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STEVEN J.D. STUART, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Case No.16-cv-04267-HSG ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE v. DNC SERVICES CORPORATION, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 10 Defendants. On July 28, 2016, pro se plaintiff Steven J.D. Stuart filed his complaint against Hillary 13 Rodham Clinton (“HRC”) and DNC Services, Corp. (“DNC”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Dkt. 14 No. 1. Plaintiff’s complaint sought the following relief: (1) injunctive relief preventing 15 Defendants from nominating and promoting HRC to run for President “in any election” and 16 “specifically” in November 2016; (2) declaratory relief determining whether HRC was qualified to 17 be President and had the right to run, and whether the DNC had the right to nominate and promote 18 her; (3) costs of suit; and (4) other appropriate relief determined by the Court. Id. The Court 19 granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on September 16, 2016. Dkt. No. 8. 20 On September 30, 2016, the Clerk sent a letter requesting that Plaintiff submit the 21 addresses of the defendants so that the United States Marshal could complete service. Dkt. No. 9. 22 The letter stated that its bottom portion should be used for that purpose and enclosed a self- 23 addressed postage-paid envelope. Id. Plaintiff did not respond or file anything with the Court. 24 Plaintiff failed to file a case management statement for the case management conference 25 scheduled for December 6, 2016. See Dkt. No. 7 (setting case management conference for 26 December 6, 2016, and setting deadline of November 29, 2016 to file case management 27 statement). On December 5, 2016, still having heard nothing from Plaintiff, the Court vacated the 28 next day’s case management conference, ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his case should not 1 be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and ordered Plaintiff to respond by December 19, 2016 to 2 avoid dismissal of his case. See Dkt. No. 10 (“Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why 3 this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff shall respond to this Order in a 4 written statement of no more than two pages by December 19, 2016. If Plaintiff fails to respond to 5 this Order, the Court will dismiss the action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 41.”). Plaintiff has missed the deadline to file his response. Indeed, Plaintiff has made no filing 7 whatsoever in this case during the nearly five months since he filed his complaint. The Court, having carefully considered the five factors set forth in Malone v. United States 8 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987),1 finds that notwithstanding the public policy 10 favoring the disposition of actions on their merits, the Court’s need to manage its docket and the 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation require dismissal of this action. Given 12 Plaintiff’s lack of response to the Court’s prior orders, there is no appropriate less drastic sanction. 13 Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 14 Procedure 41(b) for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: 12/29/2016 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 “A district court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. It is not necessary for a district court to make explicit findings to show that it has considered these factors.” Malone, 833 F.2d at 130 (quotation marks and citations omitted). 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?