Bellot v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 23

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. The clerk of the court shall enter Judgment accordingly, and shall accept no further filings in this matter. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 11/04/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8

JEDEDIAN BELLOT,

9
10
11
12
13

Case No. 2:13-cv-0060-APG-VCF
Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE
(Dkt. #20)

v.
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

14
On June 21, 2013, Magistrate Judge Ferenbach entered his Order (1) granting
15
the Defendants’ Motion to Compel, (2) granting the Defendants’ Motion for Attorney Fees
16
and Costs, and (3) granting Plaintiff’s counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of
17
Record. [Dkt. #19] Judge Ferenbach’s Order recites Plaintiff’s failure to comply with his
18
discovery obligations and to prosecute his case. Judge Ferenbach ordered Plaintiff to
19
respond to the outstanding discovery requests and to pay $655.00 to Defendants’
20
counsel for attorney costs and fees. [Id. at 4:4-8.] Judge Ferenbach specifically stated
21
that “[i]f Plaintiff fails to perform in accordance with this Order, the Court will presume
22
that Plaintiff is no longer interested in pursuing his claim and will recommend dismissal
23
of the action in full.” [Dkt. #19 at 3:18-20.]
24
Plaintiff has failed to comply with that Order, has failed to prosecute his claims,
25
and has failed to contact Defendants’ counsel. [Dkt. #20 at 3:14-22.] Accordingly, on
26
August 2, 2013, Defendants filed their Motion for Involuntary Dismissal.

[Dkt. #20.]

27
Plaintiff filed no opposition to the Motion.
28

Pursuant to LR 7-2(d), the “failure of an

1

opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a

2

consent to the granting of the motion.”

3

Defendants’ motion and renders this decision based upon the merits of that motion.

Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the

4

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) states that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute

5

or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the

6

action or any claim against it.”

7

dismissing an action for want of diligent prosecution.” Schmidt v. Wallenius Line, 455

8

F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1972).

9

In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order
the district court must weigh five factors including: “(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 alternatives.”

10
11
12
13

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.1992).

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

These factors strongly

suggest that Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed.

14
15

The court has “broad discretion in the matter of

This court’s docket is jammed with cases. A party’s failure to prosecute his claims
causes further backlog, interferes with the court’s ability to address active cases, and
delays resolution of other litigants’ cases. Moreover, the discovery period for this case
has now expired. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to discovery has precluded Defendants
from discovering relevant facts and evidence and developing their defenses. Clearly,
Defendants have been prejudiced by Plaintiff’s inaction. While less drastic measures are
available, it is obvious from the Defendant’s Motion, Judge Ferenbach’s Order, and the
events that gave rise to that Order that Plaintiff has no intention of prosecuting his case.
Further orders from this court likely would be ignored.

Thus, good cause exists to

dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for his utter failure to satisfy his obligations as a litigant.
Therefore,
////
////
////

28
2

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED.

2

The clerk of the court shall enter Judgment accordingly, and shall accept no

3
4

further filings in this matter.
Dated: November 4, 2013.

5
ANDREW P. GORDON
P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3