In Re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation

Filing 3455

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN PRO SE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE; granting 3439 Motion to Dismiss. The claims of pro se Plaintiffs Vivian Sue Rey Dickson, Richelle Hendrix, Elathine A. Marlow, Frederick Nelson, Katherine N. Plager, Elaine M aria Rey, Maybelle Sabedra, Ronald Utz, Sr., and Noreen L. Wynne are Dismissed with Prejudice. Signed by Senior Judge Wm. Fremming Nielsen. (cc: Corrinalyn and Robert Guyette for Maybelle Sabedra, Richelle A. Hendrix, Elathine A. Marlow, Martha J. McNeely electronically at mjmcneely@netzero.net, Frederick W. Nelson, Katherine N. Plager, Elaine Maria Rey, Beverly M. Utz, and Noreen L. Wynne) (PL, Case Administrator)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 IN RE HANFORD NUCLEAR 7 RESERVATION LITIGATION, 8 No. 2: 91-CV-3015-WFN ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN PRO SE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE 9 10 11 12 Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice Pursuant 13 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for pro se Plaintiffs Vivian Sue Rey Dickson, 14 Richelle Hendrix, Elathine A. Marlow, Frederick Nelson, Katherine N. Plager, Elaine Rey, 15 Maybelle Sabedra, Ronald E. Utz, Sr., and Noreen Wynne. ECF No. 3439. Defendants' 16 briefing accurately depicts the series of orders and deadlines set by the Court for pro se 17 Plaintiffs. The Court warned pro se Plaintiffs that failure to meet deadlines and comply 18 with Court orders would likely lead to involuntary dismissal with prejudice. The Court 19 held a status conference specifically to address the pro se plaintiffs wherein the Court gave 20 Defendants permission to file a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and set deadlines 21 for responding to the Defendants' allegations that the Plaintiffs named in Defendants' 22 Motion failed to comply with this Court's orders and deadlines. None of the named pro se 23 Plaintiffs answered the Defendant's motion. None have provided the Court with any 24 reason not to grant Defendants' Motion. Given the complete lack of follow through on the 25 part of each of the named Plaintiffs the Court feels that there is no other option but to 26 dismiss their claims with prejudice. The Hanford litigation has been pending for decades. 27 Defendants have a strong interest in resolution of the claims which cannot happen if the 28 named Plaintiffs fail to comply with any discovery requirements or Court ordered deadline ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN PRO SE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE - 1 1 of any kind. Though the Court would prefer that the cases be determined on their merits, 2 such a resolution is impossible if the named pro se Plaintiffs do not meet even the most 3 basic requests, such as updating interrogatories and medical provider lists—or even, in the 4 case of a few of the named pro se Plaintiffs, confirming their legal right to pursue the 5 claims in the first place. The Court has reviewed the file and Defendants' Motion and is 6 fully informed. Accordingly, 7 IT IS ORDERED that: 8 1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 9 Procedure 41(b), filed March 21, 2014, ECF No. 3439, is GRANTED. 10 2. The claims of pro se Plaintiffs Vivian Sue Rey Dickson, Richelle Hendrix, 11 Elathine A. Marlow, Frederick Nelson, Katherine N. Plager, Elaine Maria Rey, 12 Maybelle Sabedra, Ronald E. Utz, Sr., and Noreen L. Wynne are DISMISSED WITH 13 PREJUDICE. 14 The District Court Executive is directed to file this Order and provide copies to 15 counsel; Mediator Gary Bloom; AND TO pro se Plaintiffs Corrinalyn and Robert Guyette, 16 Richelle A. Hendrix, Elathine A. Marlow, Martha J. McNeely, Frederick W. Nelson, 17 Katherine N. Plager, Elaine Maria Rey, Beverly M. Utz, and Noreen L. Wynne. DATED this 15th day of April, 2014. 18 19 20 21 04-09-14 s/ Wm. Fremming Nielsen WM. FREMMING NIELSEN SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN PRO SE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE - 2

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?