Galloway v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. et al

Filing 119

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales. Show Cause Response due by 8/24/2017. (tah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ANN M. GALLOWAY,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civ. No. 16-335 KG/KK

MICHAEL TIPSORD, current CEO of State Farm
Fire & Casualty Company and State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, in his
individual capacity and as State Farm employee,
Defendant.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. A review of the docket indicates that only one
Defendant, Michael Tipsord, remains and that he has not answered or otherwise responded to
Plaintiff’s amended complaints (Docs. 5 and 44). Pro se Plaintiff’s last activity in this case was
the filing of an incomprehensible “Response to Order(s) and Motion(s)” on December 16, 2016,
which, if liberally construed as some kind of motion, is denied. (Doc. 117). See Gruenwald v.
Maddox, 403 F. App'x 306, 308 (10th Cir. 2010) (denying pro se motion because court could not
“discern a reasoned, non-frivolous argument on the law and facts….”). It is now August 2017
and Plaintiff has taken no further steps to prosecute this case against Defendant Tipsord.
The inherent power of the Court to dismiss an action sua sponte for want of prosecution
is well-established. See Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n. 3 (10th Cir. 2003) (Fed. R. Civ.
41(b) “has long been interpreted to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff's
failure to prosecute….”) (citing Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31, reh’g denied, 371
U.S. 873 (1962)). Considering the status of this case, Plaintiff will be directed to show cause

why her case against Defendant Tipsord should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to
prosecute.
IT IS ORDERED that
1. “Response to Order(s) and Motion(s)” (Doc. 117) is denied;
2. fourteen days from the date of the entry of this Order to Show Cause Plaintiff must
file a written response showing why her case against Defendant Tipsord should not be dismissed
without prejudice for failure to prosecute; and
3. Plaintiff is notified that failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause will result in
the dismissal of her case against Defendant Tipsord without further notice.

_______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2