Shinholster v. Department of Corrections et al
Filing
10
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT - The court certifies any appeal of this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (AY, Case Administrator)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
6
7
GREGORY F. SHINHOLSTER,
NO: 2:17-CV-141-RMP
Plaintiff,
8
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
9
10
11
12
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
and OFFICER STANLEY
REYNALDS,
Defendants.
13
14
By Order filed July 13, 2017, the Court advised Plaintiff of the deficiencies
15
of his complaint and directed him to amend or voluntarily dismiss. ECF No. 9.
16
Plaintiff, Gregory F. Shinholster, is a former prisoner residing in Spokane,
17
Washington. The Court granted Mr. Shinholster leave to proceed in forma
18
pauperis but without the obligation to pay the filing fee in partial payments under
19
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). ECF No. 7. Defendants were not served.
20
21
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT -- 1
1
The Court cautioned Mr. Shinholster that if he did not amend as directed his
2
complaint would be dismissed for failure to obey a court Order. Mr. Shinholster
3
has filed nothing further in this action.
4
DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER
5
“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (b), the district court may
6
dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.” Ferdik v.
7
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). The district court should consider
8
five factors when deciding whether to dismiss a case for failure to obey a court
9
order:
10
11
(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.
12
Id. at 1260-61 (citations omitted).
13
The first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The Court’s and the
14
public’s interests are both served by a quick resolution of civil rights litigation.
15
The third factor also favors dismissal. Defendants will not be prejudiced if the
16
claims are dismissed because Defendants have not been served. Only the fourth
17
factor arguably weighs against dismissal. However, despite the Court's
18
instructions, Mr. Shinholster has not presented legally sufficient complaint. As for
19
the fifth factor, the only less drastic alternative would be to allow Mr. Shinholster
20
yet more time to amend his complaint. Mr. Shinholster, however, has already had
21
more than three months in which to file an amended complaint, and he failed to do
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT -- 2
1
so. Allowing a further extension would frustrate the purpose of the first two
2
factors; therefore, the fifth factor favors dismissal. On balance, the four factors
3
that favor dismissal outweigh the one that does not. Id. at 1263 (citing Malone v.
4
United States Postal Serv, 833 F.2d 128, 133 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987) (four factors
5
heavily supporting dismissal outweigh one against dismissal)).
6
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF
7
No. 8, be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court certifies any
8
appeal of this dismissal would not be taken in good faith.
9
10
11
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, enter judgment, forward
copies to Plaintiff, and close this case.
DATED October 20, 2017.
12
13
s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON
United States District Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT -- 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?