Reevis v. Spokane County Superior Court et al

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to obey a court order. This case is CLOSED. The court certifies any appeal of this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (CLP, Case Administrator) (Service of Notice on parties not registered as users of the Court CM/ECF system accomplished via USPS mail.)

Case 1:21-cv-03056-RMP

ECF No. 7

1

filed 09/08/21

PageID.72 Page 1 of 3

FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

2

Sep 08, 2021
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

CHARLES JOSEPH REEVIS,

8
9
10

Plaintiff,
v.

14

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

SPOKANE COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURTS, STATE OF
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION EASTERN
STATE HOSPITAL and YAKIMA
COMPETENCY RESTORATION
CENTER,

15

NO: 1:21-CV-03056-RMP

Defendants.

11
12
13

16
17

By Order filed July 12, 2021, the Court instructed Plaintiff Charles Joseph

18

Reevis to provide his current mailing address and documents to proceed in forma

19

pauperis. ECF No. 6. The Order was mailed to Plaintiff at Spokane County

20

Detention Services. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to respond would

21

result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. Id. at 2. Plaintiff did

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION -- 1

Case 1:21-cv-03056-RMP

1

ECF No. 7

filed 09/08/21

PageID.73 Page 2 of 3

not respond to the Court’s Order and has filed nothing further in this action.
DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

2

“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may

3
4

dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.” Ferdik v.

5

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). The district court should consider

6

five factors when deciding whether to dismiss a case for failure to obey a court

7

order:

8
9
10
11
12

(1) The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the
court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the
defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their
merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61 (Citations omitted).
The first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The need to manage the

13

docket and the public’s interests are served by a quick resolution of civil rights

14

litigation. The third factor also favors dismissal. Defendants will not be

15

prejudiced if the claims are dismissed because the defendants have not yet been

16

served. Only the fourth factor arguably weighs against dismissal, but the

17

resolution of the filing fee requirement, and whether Plaintiff qualifies to proceed

18

in forma pauperis, must occur before reaching the merits of Plaintiff’s case, in any

19

event. See ECF Nos. 4 and 6.As for the fifth factor, the only less drastic alternative

20

would be to allow Plaintiff yet more time to comply with the Court’s directive.

21

Plaintiff, however, has already had nearly two months in which to supply the

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION -- 2

Case 1:21-cv-03056-RMP

ECF No. 7

filed 09/08/21

PageID.74 Page 3 of 3

1

required information and failed to do so. Allowing a further extension would

2

frustrate the purpose of the first two factors; therefore, the fifth factor favors

3

dismissal. On balance, the four factors that favor dismissal outweigh the one that

4

does not. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263 (citing Malone v. United States Postal Serv, 833

5

F.2d 128, 133 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987) (four factors heavily supporting dismissal

6

outweigh one against dismissal)).

7

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

8

1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to obey a court

9

order.

10

2. This case is CLOSED.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is DIRECTED to enter

12

this Order, provide a copy to Plaintiff at his last known address and CLOSE the

13

file. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this

14

Order would not be taken in good faith and would lack any arguable basis in law or

15

fact.

16

DATED September 8, 2021.

17
s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION -- 3