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.)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?