Williams v. Bank of America, N.A., et al.
Filing
57
ORDER Dismissing Case for want of Prosecution. Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 5/6/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)
Case 2:16-cv-00199-JCM-BNW Document 57 Filed 05/06/20 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
MICHAEL E. WILLIAMS,
Case No. 2:16-CV-199 JCM (BNW)
8
9
10
Plaintiff(s),
ORDER
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,
11
Defendant(s).
12
13
14
Presently before the court is the matter of Williams v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., case
number 2:16-cv-00199-JCM-BNW.
15
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or
16
to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any
17
claim against it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Although this rule only references dismissal upon
18
defendant’s motion, the Supreme Court in Link v. Wabash R. Co. held as follows:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
Neither the permissive language of the Rule—which merely
authorizes a motion by the defendant—nor its policy requires us to
conclude that it was the purpose of the Rule to abrogate the power
of courts, acting on their own initiative, to clear their calendars of
cases that have remained dormant because of the inaction or
dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief. The authority of a court to
dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been
considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but
by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own
affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases.
Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962).
The Supreme Court specifically affirmed “the power of courts, acting on their own
initiative, to clear their calendars of cases that have remained dormant because of the inaction or
dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief.” Id. at 630. Thus, Rule 41(b) authorizes district courts
Case 2:16-cv-00199-JCM-BNW Document 57 Filed 05/06/20 Page 2 of 2
1
to sua sponte dismiss actions for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders or the
2
Rules. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640–43 (9th Cir. 2002);
3
This power is also codified in this court’s local rules. Local Rule 41-1 provides that “[a]ll
4
civil actions that have been pending in this court for more than 270 days without any proceeding
5
of record having been taken may, after notice, be dismissed for want of prosecution by the court
6
sua sponte or on the motion of an attorney or pro se party.” LR 41-1.
7
On March 26, 2020, the court gave plaintiff Michael E Williams notice, pursuant to Local
8
Rule 41-1, that “[i]f no action is taken in this case within 30 days, the Court will enter an order of
9
dismissal for want of prosecution.” (ECF No. 56). Plaintiff’s LR 41-1 dismissal deadline was
10
expressly set for April 25, 2020. Id. Nonetheless, plaintiff has not appeared or otherwise
11
prosecuted this action.
12
Accordingly,
13
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the matter of Williams v.
14
Bank of America, N.A., et al., case number 2:16-cv-00199-JCM-BNW, be, and the same hereby is,
15
DISMISSED for want of prosecution.
16
The clerk is instructed to enter judgment and close the case accordingly.
17
DATED May 6, 2020.
18
19
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?