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)

Download PDF
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

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?