Opinion
CV-21-00330-PHX-DWL
10-12-2022
Rosa Salazar-Delgado, Plaintiff, v. Larry Dennis Larson, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Dominic W. Lanza United States District Judge.
Pursuant to the Court's Case Management Order, Plaintiff was required to file and serve a Notice of Readiness for Final Pretrial Conference (“Notice”) within seven days after the dispositive motions deadline if no dispositive motions were pending on that date. (Doc. 17 ¶ 14.) The dispositive motions deadline was January 25, 2022. (Doc. 25) No dispositive motions were pending on that date, but Plaintiff failed to file the Notice. In fact, the docket reflects no activity since November 2021.
On August 5, 2022, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to “file a memorandum by August 19, 2022, not to exceed five pages, showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.” (Doc. 30 at 2.) The Court noted that:
Plaintiff has been warned that failure to meet deadlines in the Court's Case Management Order without substantial justification “may result in sanctions, including dismissal of the action.” (Doc. 17 ¶ 15.) “It is within the inherent power of the court to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.” Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984). “When considering whether to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution, the district court must weigh the court's need to manage its docket, the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, and the risk of prejudice to the defendants against the policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Id. The Ninth Circuit
has affirmed dismissal without prejudice for a delay as short as four weeks, noting that “[a] relatively brief period of delay is sufficient to justify the district court s sending a litigant to the back of the line. Id. at 497.Id. at 1-2.
Plaintiff failed to file the required memorandum. Thus, in addition to failing to prosecute this action, Plaintiff has failed to comply with multiple court orders (the Court's order to file the notice of readiness and order to show cause). “In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order the district court must weigh five factors including: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). These are the same factors the Court considers when determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute. Ash, 739 F.2d at 496.
In light of the lengthy delay and the opportunity afforded Plaintiff to come into compliance, the Court finds that no less drastic alternative to dismissal is appropriate here, although dismissal without prejudice is a less drastic alternative to dismissal with prejudice. The public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the Court's need to manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice to Defendants outweigh the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, under these circumstances.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims are dismissed, without prejudice, as a sanction for Plaintiff's failure to comply with Court orders and failure to prosecute this action in good faith. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action.