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)

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