Brown v. State of Nevada

D. Nevada

Brown v. State of Nevada

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided March 3, 2021·No. 2:17-cv-00832·Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 * * *

9 MATTHEW BROWN, Case No. 2:17-cv-00832-JCM (DJA)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 11 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 Presently before the court is the matter of Brown v. State of Nevada et al., case number 16 2:17-cv-00832-JCM-DJA. 17 This court ordered plaintiff to take action twice in the instant case—first on August 24, 18 2020, (ECF No. 35), and next on February 17, 2021, (ECF No. 40). Specifically, plaintiff was 19 “ordered to show cause, within 10 days of [the February 17, 2021] order, as to why this case should 20 not be dismissed for want of prosecution.” (ECF No. 40). This court warned that “[f]ailure to 21 comply will result in case-terminating sanctions. (Id.). Yet, plaintiff has failed to do so. 22 This court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate. Before engaging in case- 23 terminating sanctions, this court weighs “five factors in deciding whether to dismiss a case for 24 failure to comply with a court order:” (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 25 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 26 drastic sanctions.” 27 In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). ' The “public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation’, “the court’s need to manage 2 its docket”, and “the risk of prejudice to the defendants” weigh overwhelmingly in favor of dismissal. /d. These factors outweigh the remaining considerations before this court. Upon openly factoring plaintiffs circumstances, this court has given him multiple opportunities and ample time to continue litigating this matter, but no further action has been taken. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the matter of Brown v. 8 State of Nevada et al., case number 2:17-cv-00832-JCM-DJA, be, and the same hereby is, 9 DISMISSED for failure to comply with this court’s orders. 10 The clerk shall close the case. " DATED March 3, 2021. 12 13 pe iti ©. Atallan 14 UMITED!STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 * * *

9 MATTHEW BROWN, Case No. 2:17-cv-00832-JCM (DJA)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 11 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 Presently before the court is the matter of Brown v. State of Nevada et al., case number 16 2:17-cv-00832-JCM-DJA. 17 This court ordered plaintiff to take action twice in the instant case—first on August 24, 18 2020, (ECF No. 35), and next on February 17, 2021, (ECF No. 40). Specifically, plaintiff was 19 “ordered to show cause, within 10 days of [the February 17, 2021] order, as to why this case should 20 not be dismissed for want of prosecution.” (ECF No. 40). This court warned that “[f]ailure to 21 comply will result in case-terminating sanctions. (Id.). Yet, plaintiff has failed to do so. 22 This court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate. Before engaging in case- 23 terminating sanctions, this court weighs “five factors in deciding whether to dismiss a case for 24 failure to comply with a court order:” (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 25 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 26 drastic sanctions.” 27 In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). ' The “public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation’, “the court’s need to manage 2 its docket”, and “the risk of prejudice to the defendants” weigh overwhelmingly in favor of dismissal. /d. These factors outweigh the remaining considerations before this court. Upon openly factoring plaintiffs circumstances, this court has given him multiple opportunities and ample time to continue litigating this matter, but no further action has been taken. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the matter of Brown v. 8 State of Nevada et al., case number 2:17-cv-00832-JCM-DJA, be, and the same hereby is, 9 DISMISSED for failure to comply with this court’s orders. 10 The clerk shall close the case. " DATED March 3, 2021. 12 13 pe iti ©. Atallan 14 UMITED!STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Brown v. State of Nevada, (D. Nev. 2021).

Pincite

Brown v. State of Nevada (Brown v. State of Nevada) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

In Re Phenylpropanolamine (Ppa) Products Liability Litigation, Shantell Allen, on Behalf of Allen, Vera v. Bayer Corporation, Leon Anderson, Jr. v. Bayer Corporation, Leslie Ackel v. Bayer Corporation, Bridgett Arrington v. Bayer Corporation, Calvin McGriggs v. Delaco Company, Betty Clinton v. Delaco Company, Donna Sasseen v. Ide Interstate Inc., Elizabeth Page v. Bayer Corporation, Marie Riley v. Wyeth, Obo Itself and Its Unincorporated Division, Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, Fka Whitehall-Robins Healthcare Formerly Known as American Home Products Corporation, and Keva K. Alford, on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Henry Dexter, and Eddie Bullock v. Wyeth, Obo Itself and Its Unincorporated Division, Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, Fka Whitehall-Robins Healthcare Formerly Known as American Home Products Corporation, and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Bobby Holmes v. Bayer Corporation, Melody McDaniel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Samantha Samuels v. Bayer Corporation

460 F.3d 1217 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Opinion

Related