Evatt v. Simbeck

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 SCOTT EMERSON EVATT, Case No. 3:25-cv-05162-TMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 9 WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO v. PROSECUTE 10 PAUL SIMBECK; KIRK MEDINA; 11 BRANDON AVALOS, 12 Defendant. 13

14 On February 26, 2025, Plaintiff Scott Emerson Evatt initiated this case by filing a 15 complaint. Dkt. 1. The deadline for serving the summonses and complaint passed on May 27, 16 2025—90 days after the complaint was filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). On June 12, 2025, United 17 States Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold ordered Mr. Evatt to show cause no later than July 7, 18 2025, why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely serve. Dkt. 3. 19 The deadline has passed, and Mr. Evatt has not responded to the Court’s order nor made any 20 further filings. 21 Accordingly, the Court dismisses this case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (allowing for involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute or failure to 23 comply with the federal rules or court orders); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 24 1 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (courts may dismiss cases sua sponte pursuant to Rule 41(b) 2 for failure to prosecute); Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The district judge 3 has an obligation to warn the plaintiff that dismissal is imminent.”); Haynes v. Hanson, 695 F. 4 || App’x 317, 318 (9th Cir. 2017) (upholding dismissal of case for failure to prosecute where the 5 ||plaintiff “fail[ed] to effectuate service of process”). 6 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 7 any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 8 Dated this 31st day of July, 2025. ° Leg 10 TiffanyM. Cartwright United States District Judge 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24