Jones et al v. Odyssey-Geronimo JV

Filing 9

Order. Signed on 9/6/12 by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (dmd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

WILLIAM T. JONES, an individual, and
MARK A. SKINNER, an individual,
Plaintiffs,

Case No.: 3-11-cv-01216-HA

ORDER

v.
ODYSSEY-GERONIMO JV,
Defendant.

HAGGERTY, District Judge:
Plaintiffs filed this action in October of2011 against defendant alleging employment
discrimination and violation of Oregon's employment statutes. Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs'
counsel moved to withdraw based on a conflict that was not subject to waiver. This court
permitted counsel to withdraw, and sent a copy of the Order to plaintiffs at their individual
addresses. As patt of its Order, this court stated that plaintiffs would be proceeding pro se unless
new counsel appeared on their behalf. Since that time, plaintiffs have not obtained new counsel,
sent any communication to the court, or attempted to serve defendant.
By Order issued August 2, 2012, and mailed to plaintiffs1 home addresses, plaintiffs were
ordered to show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
One of the letters came back as undeliverable, so the court sent a copy of the Order to the new
1-- ORDER

address listed for one of the pro se plaintiffs. The court also extended the time for plaintiffs to
respond to the order to show cause. The deadline for responding to the court's Order has since
expired, and plaintiffshave failed to serve defendant or otherwise respond to any of the court's
requests.
A district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Ferdikv v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992); see also
Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that district comis have an

inherent power sua sponte to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution). In determining whether to
dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the comi is required to weigh several factors: ( 1) the
public's interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its
docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of
cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson, 779 F.2d at
1423.
Here, despite explicit instructions fi·om the court, plaintiffs have failed to prosecute this
action in a timely fashion. After weighing the factors enumerated above, the court is compelled
to dismiss this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this k_ day of September, 2012.

Ancer L. Bagger --...__
United States District Judge

2-- ORDER