Mahan v. Core Values Roadside Service, LLC

Opinion

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 1 Oct 05, 2022 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5

No. 2:20-CV-00106-ACE 7 Plaintiff, 8 ORDER TO DISMISS, WITHOUT

PRJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO 9 v. PROSECUTE

10 CORE VALUES ROADSIDE 11 SERVICE, LLC, and MARK HYNDMAN, 12

13 Defendants. 14 15 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s complaint filed on June 25, 2019. 16 ECF No. 1. The matter was transferred to the Eastern District of Washington on 17 March 18, 2020. ECF No. 19. On September 15, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel moved 18 to withdraw, and the Court eventually granted this request. See ECF Nos. 40-44. 19 The Clerk’s Office attempted to deliver a copy of the Court’s order granting the 20 motion to withdraw to Plaintiff’s last known address, but the mail was returned as 21 undeliverable. ECF Nos. 44-45. 22 On July 27, 2022, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause why this matter 23 should not be dismissed for her failure to prosecute the case. ECF No. 48. 24 Plaintiff was advised that if she failed to show cause within the specified period of 25 time, this action would be dismissed without prejudice. 26 On September 21, 2022, this case was reassigned to the undersigned, and the 27 parties were informed of their right to decline consent of the assignment to a 28 magistrate judge. No timely declination of consent was received by the Court. 1 To date, Plaintiff has not filed anything in this matter, new counsel has not 2 appeared, and Plaintiff has failed to provide a current address to the Clerk of the 3 Court. The Court has additionally received no response to the July 27, 2022 show cause order. 5 The Court may dismiss a case for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of 6 Civil Procedure 41(b), which provides: “If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to 7 comply with ...acourt order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any 8 claim against it.” Martin v. Colvin, 2014 WL 358588 at *2 (W.D. Wash. 2014). 9 “A federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute, even though the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) appear[s] to require a motion from a party.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 49 (1991). 13 Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s order to show cause and has 14] failed to advance this case. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to file this Order, provide copies to Plaintiff and counsel, and CLOSE THE FILE. 18 DATED October 5, 2022.

20 Clade © Gaim, C, Oe ds ALEXANDER C. EKSTROM 71 —_ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ORDER - 2