Opinion
Civil No. 04-74930.
December 1, 2005.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Plaintiff Richard Johnson, in pro per, filed a Complaint against 18 Defendants alleging various constitutional and statutory civil rights claims. The underlying facts relate to an action to quiet title in Oakland County Circuit Court in which the court held that Plaintiff has no interest in a certain parcel of property. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and Local Rule 41.2, a court can dismiss a case for failure to prosecute after giving notice to the parties. Mulbah v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 261 F.3d 586, 589 (6th Cir. 2001). Local Rule 41.2 provides that when "the parties have taken no action for a reasonable time, the court may, on its own motion after reasonable notice or on application of a party, enter an order dismissing or remanding the case unless good cause is shown."
In reviewing a district court's decision to dismiss for lack of prosecution, the Sixth Circuit recognizes four relevant factors (although none are prerequisites): "(1) whether the party's failure is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether the adversary was prejudiced by the dismissed party's conduct; (3) whether the dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and (4) whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal of the action." Mulbah, 261 F.3d at 589; Muncy v. G.C.R., Inc., 110 Fed. Appx. 552, 555 (2004). The court emphasized that "those factors are merely guideposts or points of departure . . . they are not required elements." Muncy, 110 Fed. Appx. at 555 (emphasis in original). Any dismissal, even with prejudice, is justifiable where "there is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct on the part of the plaintiff." Mulbah, 261 F.3d at 591.
Plaintiff's Complaint was filed in December 2004, and he has filed nothing since then. He failed to respond to the Oakland County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions, both filed in March 2005. Most recently he failed to respond to Defendant Ohio Savings Bank's Motion to Dismiss filed in October 2005. It seems Plaintiff no longer has any interest in pursuing this lawsuit. Plaintiff represents himself in this case, so his inaction is clearly his own fault and cannot be blamed on an attorney's dilatory conduct. See Mulbah, 261 F.3d at 591 ("We have therefore applied the four-factor test more stringently in cases where the conduct of a plaintiff's attorney is the reason for dismissal.") Almost one year of inactivity on Plaintiff's part surely amounts to a "reasonable time" after which a court may dismiss a case under Local Rule 41.2.
For ease of identification, the following Defendants will be referred to as the "Oakland County Defendants": the Honorable Gene Schnelz, the Honorable Wendy Potts, G. William Caddell, Kevin Oeffner, Patrick Dohany, and Christopher Contreras.
I ORDER Plaintiff to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. If Plaintiff fails to show cause within 21 days (12/21/2005) of the date of this order, this Court will enter an order dismissing this case with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.