Clark v. Guerrero

Filing 98

ORDER that plaintiffs motion seeking reconsideration 97 is GRANTED. This courts previous order dismissing the case 96 is VACATED and the case re-opened. Defendants file any opposition to plaintiffs motion for trial 95 by Friday, April 27, 2012. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/13/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 MICHAEL CLARK, 8 9 10 2:09-CV-141 JCM (PAL) Plaintiff, v. OFFICER GUERRERO, 11 12 Defendant. 13 14 15 ORDER Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion seeking reconsideration of this court’s dismissal order. (Doc. #97). Defendants have not filed a response. 16 On December 30, 2011, pursuant to Local Rule 41-1, this court dismissed the case due to 17 plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his case for over 270 days. However, plaintiff has now brought to the 18 court’s attention that he filed a motion to set trial in this matter on December 21, 2011, the final day 19 before the case became subject to dismissal. Accordingly, this court should not have dismissed the 20 motion pursuant to Local Rule 41-1. 21 The court notes that the docket in this case reflects that the parties engaged in very little 22 pretrial motion practice. The court’s docket does not reflect any discovery having taken place. 23 Further, the plaintiff had failed to file any documents in this action for nearly a year. It was not until 24 the very last day before this case was to be decided that plaintiff requested a trial be calendared. 25 Taken together, these facts make it unlikely that this case is prepared for trial. Under these 26 conditions, the court finds that plaintiff’s motion for trial may actually be an attempt to establish an 27 intent to prosecute the case before the Rule 41-1 deadline expired. 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge 1 2 While this court should not have dismissed the action due to Local Rule 41-1, it is equally inappropriate to set a case for trial where the plaintiff has failed to properly prepare the case. 3 Therefore, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion seeking 5 6 7 8 9 10 reconsideration (doc. #97) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this court’s previous order dismissing the case (doc. #96) be, and the same hereby is, VACATED and the case re-opened. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants file any opposition to plaintiff’s motion for trial (doc. #95) by Friday, April 27, 2012. DATED April 13, 2012. 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -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?