Craddock v. Stratus Building Solutions
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by December 17, 2012 why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 11/26/2012. Mailed to pro se party Chassidy Craddock by regular and certified mail. (est)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
STRATUS BUILDING SOLUTIONS,
Case No. 12-2569-JAR
On August 30, 2012, the pro se plaintiff, Chassidy Craddock, filed this Title VII
employment discrimination suit against her former employer, Stratus Building Solutions
(doc. 1). The undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge, James P. O’Hara, set a scheduling
conference for November 20, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 236 (doc. 12). A copy of
the order setting the scheduling conference was mailed via regular and certified mail to
Ms. Craddock. Although defendant’s attorney appeared at the scheduling conference,
Ms. Craddock failed to appear.
Defense counsel reported that he did reach Ms. Craddock by telephone to discuss a
case management plan.
After discussing only a few items on the court-prescribed
agenda, though, Ms. Craddock hung up on defense counsel.
The court has made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact Ms. Craddock. All
certified mail sent to her address of record has been returned as undeliverable (docs. 13–
14). Notably, however, none of the court’s regular mailings have been returned by the
U.S. Post Office, and therefore the court presumes all of those mailings were delivered to
Ms. Craddock.1 In any event, after Ms. Craddock failed to appear at the scheduling
conference, the court attempted to call her, but the telephone number she provided was
answered by an automated service stating she was “not accepting calls at this time.”
As a pro se litigant, Ms. Craddock is obligated to notify the Clerk of the Court in
writing of any change of address or telephone number.2 She has failed to satisfy this
requirement. She also has failed to meaningfully meet with counsel to develop a case
management plan, and also failed to appear for the scheduling conference with the court,
both of which are direct violations of the court’s orders. Simply put, the court cannot and
will not allow Ms. Craddock, or any other litigant, to file a case and then ignore that case.
Accordingly, Ms. Craddock is ordered to show cause in writing by December 17, 2012
why this case should not be dismissed, with prejudice to the case ever being re-filed later,
for lack of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated November 26 2012, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ James P. O’Hara
James P. O’Hara
U. S. Magistrate Judge
See Moya v. United States, 35 F.3d 501, 504 (10th Cir. 1994) (stating that the “law
presumes delivery of a properly addressed piece of mail”).
D. Kan. Rule 5.1(c)(3).
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?