Sadeghian et al v. United States of America

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Don D. Bush on 4/28/2016. (kls, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
KHOSROW SADEGHIAN
and AMY JO SADEGHIAN

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiffs,
VS.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant.

Case No. 4:13cv719

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE
FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION
On December 1, 2015, this case was assigned to the undersigned by consent of the parties.
See Dkt. 23. On January 26, 2016, the Court entered the Fourth Amended Scheduling Order in this
matter, noting that the case had been pending on the Court’s docket since December 2013 and setting
all remaining pretrial deadlines as well as the final pretrial conference. See Dkt. 27.
The Order directed pro se Plaintiffs to deliver to the Court a copy of the Joint Final Pretrial
Order prepared in accordance with Local Rule CV-16(b) and Joint Proposed Jury Instructions and
Verdict Form (or proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in nonjury cases) by April 20,
2016. Id. Nothing was received from Plaintiffs by the Court’s deadline.
In its April 20, 2016 pretrial filings with the Court, Defendant notified the Court that
Plaintiffs did not make their pre-trial disclosure pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) by the Court’s
deadline. See Dkt. 31; see also Dkts. 29 and 30 (Defendant’s proposed exhibit and witness lists and

1

Defendant’s proposed findings of fact). Defendant also notified the Court that, although it complied
with its April 13, 2016 deadline to make its pretrial disclosures and to provide its share of
information for the final pretrial order, Plaintiffs did not deliver to Defendant their share of the
necessary information contained in the Joint Final Pre-trial Order or their proposed Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law in this nonjury case. See Dkt. 31.
Based on the record before it, the Court finds that this case should be dismissed for want of
prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v) (a court may dismiss an action
in whole or in part for a party’s failure to comply with discovery order); Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d
1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998) (“A district court sua sponte may dismiss an action for failure to
prosecute or to comply with any court order.”); Jackson v. Lewis Food Town, Inc., 203 Fed. App’x
576, 576 (5th Cir. 2006) (affirming dismissal where the magistrate judge, district judge, and counsel
for the defendant “patiently and properly” sought to obtain information from the plaintiff and the
plaintiff was informed of what was required and what consequences could result from failure to
comply but continued to refuse to comply); Bivins v. Mississippi Press Register, Inc., 72 Fed. App’x
166, 167 (5th Cir. 2003) (affirming dismissal of complaint with prejudice where the record showed
that the plaintiff wilfully refused to comply with discovery orders, although the magistrate judge
gave repeated extensions of the discovery deadlines).
Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Court’s clear deadlines. Plaintiffs have not provided
information to Defendant as directed, nor have they filed the pretrial materials as ordered by this
Court. The Court further notes that although the case has remained pending on the Court’s docket

2

for more than 29 months, other than acknowledgments of receipt of certain court correspondence,
Plaintiffs have taken essentially no action in this case since the filing of their complaint. Plaintiffs
have simply not actively prosecuted their claims,
.

It is therefore ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice for want of
prosecution. It shall be closed on the Court’s docket, and all costs shall be borne by the party
incurring same.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 28th day of April, 2016.
.

____________________________________
DON D. BUSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3