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)

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