Davis v. Peters et al

Filing 54

ORDER: The complaint in this case is dismissed for failure to comply with Local Rule 83-1 O(a), failure to comply with the court's orders, and failure to prosecute. The dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). All remaining motions are denied as moot. Signed on 10/3/2018 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (joha)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PENDLETON DIVISION

MENICO PARIS DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

COLLETTE PETERS, et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2: l 7-cv-00732-JO
ORDER

JONES, Judge
On May 2, 2017, plaintiffMenico Davis filed this lawsuit prose while he was in the custody
of the Oregon Department of Con-ections ("ODOC"). On July 6, 2018, ODOC released Davis from
custody. He has failed to provide contact information to defendants or to the court since the time
of his release. The matter is now before me on defendants' motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b) for failme to prosecute.[# 53] For the following reasons, defendants' motion is granted.
Under Rule 41 (b), a defendant may move to dismiss an action if the plaintiff fails to
prosecute, fails to comply with the applicable rules, or fails to comply with an order of the court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 l(b ). Here, Davis has failed to comply with the Local Rule requirement to keep the
Clerk's Office informed of his current contact information. He has failed to comply with the
scheduling order of the court[# 50] by failing to file a timely opposition to the defendants' motion
I -ORDER

for summary judgment. He has failed to actively prosecute his case by failing to take any action to
move the case forward since his release from ODOC custody five months ago.
In determining whether to dismiss under Rule 41 (b ), the court must weigh certain factors,
including the public's interest in expeditious resolution oflitigation, the cou1t' s interest in managing
its docket, the risk of prejudice to the defendants, the availability ofless drastic alternatives, and the
public policy favoring the disposition of cases on the merits. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,
1260-61 (9 1h Cir. 1992). I have considered these factors and conclude that, on the whole, dismissal
is appropriate in this case. Although a disposition on the merits is preferable, Davis's failure to
participate makes that outcome impossible. The other factors favor dismissal.
Accordingly, the complaint in this case is dismissed for failure to comply with Local Rule
83-1 O(a), failure to comply with the court's orders, and failure to prosecute. The dismissal operates
as an adjudication on the merits pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). All remaining motions are denied
as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED this ~day of October, 2018.

2-0RDER