Bermudez-Zenon v. Allende-Vigo et al

Filing 22

ORDER granting 20 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. Signed by Judge Hector M Laffitte on 7/10/06. (gr)

Bermudez-Zenon v. Allende-Vigo et al

Doc. 22

Case 3:05-cv-01528-CCC

Document 22

Filed 07/10/2006

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE D IS T R I C T OF PUERTO RICO H E C T O R BERMUDEZ-ZENON, Plaintiff, v. M Y R IA M ALLENDE-VIGO, et al., Defendants

C iv il No. 05-1528(HL)

ORDER
P la in tif f initiated this action pro se on May 18, 2005. (Docket No. 1). Defendants w ere served on November 29, 2005, as evidenced by the return of service. (Docket No. 8). D e f en d a n ts answered the complaint on January 18, 2006 (Docket No. 13), and have th ric e moved for its dismissal without opposition: (1) Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. C iv . P. 12(b)(6), filed on February 16, 2006 (Docket No. 14); (2) Motion to Dismiss for P la in tif f 's Lack of Prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (Docket No. 19); and, (3) M o tio n to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution and to deem prior motions to dismiss as u n o p p o s e d (Docket No. 20). Over four (4) months have elapsed since the defendants' first re q u e st for dismissal without word from the plaintiff. D e f en d a n ts moved for dismissal of plaintiff's claims with prejudice for want of p ro s e c u tio n , having certified service of all pleadings to plaintiff's address of record. The C o u rt has notified plaintiff of all Orders to the same address; no correspondence has been re tu rn e d as undeliverable. O n June 20, 2006, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause directing plaintiff to re sp o n d to defendants' motion to dismiss or show cause as to why dismissal with prejudice s h o u ld not be granted for his failure to prosecute this action. F e d . R. Civ. P. 41(b) allows a Court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:05-cv-01528-CCC

Document 22

Filed 07/10/2006

Page 2 of 2

2 " D e sp ite the breadth of this language, however, [courts] have recognized that dismissal with p re ju d ic e is an extreme sanction that should be used only in cases of willful disobedience of a court order or where a litigant exhibits a pattern of intentional delay." Hunt v. M in n e a p o lis, 203 F.3d 524, 527 (8 th Cir. 2000), citing Hutchins v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, In c ., 116 F.3d 1256, 1260 (8 th Cir. 1997). In Zavala Santiago v. González Rivera, 553 F.2d 710, 712 (1 st Cir. 1977), the First C irc u it held that district courts unquestionably have the authority to dismiss a case with p re ju d ice for want of prosecution and that this power is necessary to prevent undue delays in th e disposition of pending cases, docket congestion, and the possibility of harassment of a d e f e n d a n t. In view of plaintiff's inaction in the face of three motions to dismiss and plaintiff's d is re g a rd for the Court's Order (Docket No. 21), the Court concludes that plaintiff has in d e e d failed to prosecute the case and that dismissal is thus warranted. W H E R E F O R E , all premises considered, this action is hereby dismissed with p re ju d ic e pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Judgment shall be entered accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 10 th day of July, 2006.

s / Héctor M. Laffitte HECTOR M. LAFFITTE U .S . DISTRICT JUDGE