Akmal v. Weidner Investment Services Inc et al

Filing 16

ORDER dismissing case with prejudice for failure to prosecute by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)

Download PDF
  1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 MARIYAM AKMAL, 10 Plaintiff, 11 ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 12 13 Case No. C15-171 RSM WEIDNER INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte on the Court’s May 24, 2017, Minute 17 Order to Show Cause. Dkt. #14. It appeared to the Court Plaintiff was not prosecuting his case 18 given that summons were issued on September 8, 2015, yet there had been no proof of service 19 20 21 or docket activity since that date. Id. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 22 On June 13, 2017, Plaintiff responded by stating that he had been unable to get 23 investigative reports from the Department of Housing & Urban Development (“HUD”) after 24 25 26 27 requesting such documents on at least three occasions. Dkt. #15. Plaintiff provides no other explanation for his inability to serve Defendants or any other efforts he has taken to prosecute his case. 28 ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 1   1 2 Plaintiff’s communications with HUD do not absolve Plaintiff of responsibility to prosecute this action. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute his case. 3 Dismissal would be appropriate under Rule 4(m) for failure to serve Defendants and the 4 Court would typically dismiss this case without prejudice based on that failure. However, 5 6 7 because Plaintiff has failed to take any action in this case for over a year, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. See Local Rule 41(b)(1) (“[a] dismissal under this subparagraph will 8 operate as an adjudication on the merits, as provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), unless the 9 court orders otherwise.”) Plaintiff has responded but failed to show good cause for his failure 10 11 12 13 14 to prosecute. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the action with prejudice. In so ruling, the Court takes no position on the underlying merits of Plaintiff’s case. Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice and this case is now CLOSED. 15 16 DATED this 22nd day of June, 2017. 17 A 18 19 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 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?