Opinion
No. CIV 11-1091 LH/WPL
01-08-2013
ARVIDKUMAR MANILAL PATEL, Plaintiff, v. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. The record reflects that in late June 2012, service was effected on Defendant. The record also indicates that Defendant has not appeared in this action or filed an answer. Likewise, Plaintiff has not made a request to enter Defendant's default. I find in Plaintiff's behavior a lack of interest in litigating his claims.
The Court has the inherent power to impose a variety of sanctions on litigants in order to regulate its docket, promote judicial efficiency, and deter frivolous filings. See Martinez v. Internal Revenue Service, 744 F.2d 71, 73 (10th Cir. 1984). One such sanction within the discretionary authority of the Court is to dismiss an action sua sponte for want of prosecution. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Powell, No. 78-1856, 1980 WL 6687, at *2 (10th Cir. Mar. 7, 1980). Based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute his complaint and the lack of activity in this case, the Court will require him to show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, within twenty (20) days from entry of this order, Plaintiff file a response to this order showing cause why his complaint should not be dismissed; failure to respond may result in dismissal without further notice.
____________________
William P. Lynch
United States Magistrate Judge