Opinion
Civil Action No. 06-1188.
July 12, 2007
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Plaintiff, acting pro se, has filed a civil complaint alleging an insurance coverage dispute. For the reasons set forth below, in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), the complaint will be dismissed for plaintiff's failure to prosecute.
I. BACKGROUND
On April 25, 2007, the court ordered plaintiff to respond to defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on or before May 24, 2007. Plaintiff failed to respond.
On May 29, 2007, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause, by June 11, 2007, why defendant's motion should not be granted. On June 12, 2007, plaintiff responded [document #23], indicating that health issues and a change in her residence contributed to her failure to respond. In addition, plaintiff sought an extension of time, until June 26, 2007, to file her response to defendant's motion. That request was granted by our order of June 18, 2007. As of the date of this memorandum and order, plaintiff has yet to respond.
II. DISCUSSION
1) The extent of the party's personal responsibility.
Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. 747 F.2d 863 Id. pro se
2) Prejudice to the adversary.
Because plaintiff seeks damages from defendant, if plaintiff never prosecutes the case, the defendant indirectly prevails. Yet, the defendant, like all parties, has a greater interest in having litigation brought to an end. The defendant is prejudiced by the uncertainty, expense and inconvenience that are inherent when a case such as this extends indefinitely.
3) A history of dilatoriness.
We fail to see where plaintiff has taken any substantial action to prosecute this case against the defendant.
4) Whether plaintiff's conduct was willful or in bad faith.
Because plaintiff failed to respond by the date she proposed in her response to our show cause order, we have no indication of why plaintiff failed to respond. We only can presume that she has abandoned the project.
5) Alternative sanctions.
Generally, the most effective sanction that can be levied against a party or her attorney is the imposition of the costs incurred by the adversary. However, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se and apparently unable to retain an attorney, the threat of monetary sanctions is, as a practical matter, nonexistent. Additionally, because plaintiff is not an attorney, the court is unable to impose disciplinary action against plaintiff. Thus, the court finds that no effective alternative sanctions can be imposed on plaintiff.
6) Merits of the claim.
Upon review of the record as a whole, the court concludes that plaintiff's likelihood of succeeding on the merits is slight.
III. CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of all the above factors, the court finds that they weigh in favor of dismissing the complaint for plaintiff's failure to prosecute. The appropriate order follows.