Jaspher-Casey v. Haynes

Filing 4

*VACATED*OPINION AND ORDER re 3 Order. Signed by Judge Salvador E Casellas on 7/15/2009.(THD) Modified on 7/22/2009 (cm).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

L A S H A U N JASPHER-CASEY

* * P l a in tif f * * v. * * A N T H O N Y HAYNES, et al. * * D e f e n d a n ts * **********************************

Civil No. 09-1358(SEC)

O P I N I O N & ORDER O n April 17, 2009, Plaintiff, a pro-se prisoner, filed the instant Complaint. See Docket # 1. Concurrently, Plaintiff petitioned to proceed in forma pauperis, but he did not file a s e p a ra te motion requesting said status, nor did he include a certified institutional account s ta te m e n t. See id.. On the same day, the Clerk of the Court informed Plaintiff regarding the d e f ec tiv e filing of the prior motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See Docket # 2. The Clerk n o tified Plaintiff that he had failed to comply with 28 U.S.C. 1915, and Local Rules 3.1(a), 3 .1 b(2), and 3.1 c(4), which outline the steps an indigent plaintiff must take in order to p ro c e ed in forma pauperis. The Clerk of the Court granted Plaintiff until May 11, 2009, to comply with the a b o v e m e n tio n e d in forma pauperis requirements. However, over a month after this deadline p a s t, Plaintiff had still failed to take any action to amend the deficiencies in his filings. A c c o rd in g ly, on June 22, 2009, this Court ordered Plaintiff to correct his filings by July 13, 2 0 0 9 , or otherwise show cause as to why the above captioned complaint should not be d ism iss e d . See Docket # 3. The show cause due date has now run, yet Plaintiff has failed to re sp o n d to the order, or seek an extension of time. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth b e lo w , the current civil action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The dismissal of a case is within the power of a district court. Of Course, dismissal is typically a measure of last resort, "reserved for extreme cases . . ." Torres-Vargas v.

Pereira, 431 F.3d 389, 393 (1st Cir. 2005). However, First Circuit precedent is clear that w h e n "the Court appropriately forewarns a plaintiff of the consequences of future nonc o m p lia n c e with an unambiguous order, the Court need not exhaust less toxic sanctions b e f o re dismissing a case with prejudice." Torres-Vargas, 431 F. 3d at 392. When making this c o n sid e ra tio n , "[t]he power of the court to prevent undue delays must be weighed against the p o lic y favoring the disposition of cases on their merits . . . [u]ltimately, however, plaintiff is responsible for developing and prosecuting its own case." Jardines Ltd. Pshp. v. Executive H o m e se a rc h Realty Servs., 178 F.R.D. 365, 367 (D.P.R. 1998); Hernandez-Festa v. F ern an d ez -C o rn ier, Civ. No. 05-1940, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59254 (D.P.R. Aug. 13, 2007). In the present action, this Court has attempted to forewarn Plaintiff regarding the d e f icie n c ies in his filings. Over the course of nearly three months, he has failed to comply w ith Local Rules 3.1(a), 3.1 b(2), and 3.1 c(4), or take any responsive action, despite this C o u rt's notification and order. Accordingly, considering Plaintiff's lack of compliance with t h e Local Rules, and his inaction regarding the show cause order, all claims against D e f en d a n ts are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Judgment will be entered a c c o rd in g ly.

SO ORDERED. In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 15 th day of July, 2009. S / Salvador E. Casellas S A L V A D O R E. CASELLAS U .S . Senior District Judge