Prigge v. Romney et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM DECISION & DISMISSAL ORDER: It is ordered that, because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's order and has failed to prosecute this case, Plaintiffs actions is Dismissed without prejudice. This action is Closed. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 07/10/2019. (kpf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
DIANE R. PRIGGE,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION &
DISMISSAL ORDER

v.
SGT. STEWART et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:17-CV-392-DN
District Judge David Nuffer

BACKGROUND
• May 18, 2017

Pro se prisoner civil-rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983
(2019). (Doc. No. 3.)

• January 29, 2018

Order requiring Plaintiff to cure deficient complaint and giving guidance
on amending complaint. (Doc. No. 17.)

• February 5, 2018

Amended complaint filed. (Doc. No. 18.)

• November 21, 2018 Order requiring Plaintiff to cure deficient amended complaint and giving
guidance on amending complaint. (Doc. No. 22.)
• January 25, 2019

Second order requiring Plaintiff to cure deficient amended complaint and
giving guidance on amending complaint. (Doc. No. 24.)

• February 19, 2019

Second amended complaint filed. (Doc. No. 25.)

• April 30, 2019

Order requiring Plaintiff to cure deficient second amended complaint and
giving guidance on amending complaint. (Doc. No. 26.) Second amended
complaint due on May 30, 2019.

The Court has not heard from Plaintiff since February 19, 2019 (nearly five months ago).
ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows involuntary dismissal of an action “[i]f the
plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with . . . a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). This Court

may dismiss actions sua sponte for failure to prosecute. Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3
(10th Cir. 2003) (“Although the language of Rule 41(b) requires that the defendant file a motion
to dismiss, the Rule has long been interpreted to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a
plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with . . . court orders.”); see also Link v. Wabash R.R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (stating court has inherent authority to clear “calendar[] of cases that
have remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief”);
Bills v. United States, 857 F.2d 1404, 1405 (10th Cir. 1988) (“Dismissal for failure to prosecute
is a recognized standard operating procedure in order to clear the deadwood from the courts’
calendars where there has been prolonged and unexcused delay.”).
Generally, “a district court may, without abusing its discretion, [dismiss a case without
prejudice] without attention to any particular procedures.” Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E.
Agents at Araphoe County Justice Ctr., 492 F.3d 1158, 1162 (10th Cir. 2007).
CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that, because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's order and
has failed to prosecute this case, see DUCivR 41-2, Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED without
prejudice. This action is CLOSED.
Signed July 10, 2019.
BY THE COURT
________________________________________
David Nuffer
United States District Judge