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)
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?