Christopher Steven Walkup v. Wells Law Group PLLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: January 16, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-03713
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Christopher Steven Walkup, No. CV-25-03713-PHX-SHD

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Wells Law Group PLLC, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 On October 8, 2025, Plaintiff Christopher Steven Walkup, proceeding pro se, 16 initiated this action by filing a Complaint. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff served Wells Law Group 17 PLLC and Christopher K. Niederhauser (“Defendants”) on October 10, 2025, (Docs. 8, 18 9). Defendants did not answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff 19 did not file an application for entry of default. On November 24, 2025, the Court issued 20 an Order to Show Cause ordering Plaintiff to show cause by no later than December 10, 21 2025, as to why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, (Doc. 10). 22 Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s show cause Order. 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a court to dismiss an action for 24 failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 25 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962) (a court’s authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution is 26 necessary to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid 27 congestion in the calendars of the district courts); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. 28 Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (a court may dismiss under Rule 41(b) for 1 failure to prosecute or comply with rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders). 2 Dismissal for failure to prosecute, however, is a “harsh penalty and is to be 3 imposed only in extreme circumstances.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 4 (9th Cir. 1986). Before dismissing Plaintiff’s case, the Court must weigh several factors: 5 “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 6 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 7 favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic 8 sanctions.” Id. (citing Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984); Mir v. Fosburg, 9 706 F.2d 916, 918 (9th Cir. 1983)). Additionally, “[a] dismissal for lack of prosecution 10 must be supported by a showing of unreasonable delay,” but the district court “is in the 11 best position to determine what period of delay can be endured before its docket becomes 12 unmanageable.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423. The Court will consider the merits of 13 each of the five Henderson factors, in turn. 14 First, “the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation,” id., favors 15 dismissal. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order delayed adjudication of 16 this action. 17 Second, “the court’s need to manage its docket,” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423, 18 favors dismissal. Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute after Defendants did not answer or 19 otherwise respond to the Complaint required the Court to expend its judicial resources 20 reviewing the docket and drafting an order to show cause, as well as an order to dismiss 21 this matter for Plaintiff’s lack of compliance. 22 Third, “the risk of prejudice to the defendants,” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423, 23 favors dismissal. Defendants are not prejudiced by dismissal due to their lack of 24 participation in this litigation. 25 Fourth, “the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits,” id., 26 neither favors nor disfavors dismissal. A dismissal under Rule 41(b) operates as an 27 adjudication on the merits “[u]nless the dismissal order states otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 41(b). If the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice, the adjudication would 1 || not be on the merits and public policy would not disfavor dismissal. 2 Fifth, “the availability of less drastic sanctions,” id., favors dismissal. Plaintiff 3|| failed to enter default against Defendants and failed respond to the Court’s show cause order despite being given ample time to do so. Plaintiff's lack of response is an 5 || indication that a less drastic sanction, such as an additional warning to comply with the 6 || Court’s order, is unlikely to have an effect. “The district court need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and 8 || meaningful alternatives.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424 (citations omitted). 9 Henderson factors one, two, three and five favor dismissal, and factor four does || not disfavor dismissal without prejudice. Thus, in sum, the Henderson factors weigh in 11 || favor of a dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See 779 F.2d at 1425 12 || (“Where counsel continues to disregard deadlines, warnings, and schedules set by the 13 || district court, we cannot find that a lack of prejudice to defendants is determinative.’’). 14 Accordingly, 15 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to || prosecute. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 17 Dated this 16th day of January, 2026. 18 19 / 20 / / 21 ) x H le Sharad H. Desai 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28

-3-