Oravetz v. Gray Wolf Storage

W.D. Washington

Oravetz v. Gray Wolf Storage

DecidedMay 12, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-05243

StatusUnknown

This text of Oravetz v. Gray Wolf Storage (Oravetz v. Gray Wolf Storage) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oravetz v. Gray Wolf Storage, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 MARK ORAVETZ, Case No. 3:25-cv-05243-TMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. 10 GRAY WOLF STORAGE, 11 Defendant. 12 13

14 I. ORDER 15 This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On March 21, 2025, the Court 16 issued a Notice of Filing Deficiency in Plaintiff Mark Oravetz’s case. Dkt. 8. The Court directed 17 Mr. Oravetz to re-submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) using the correct 18 form attached to the Court’s order by April 21, 2025. See Dkt. 8-1. Mr. Oravetz has not filed a 19 corrected IFP application, nor has he requested an additional extension of time to fix the 20 deficiency. 21 Plaintiffs have a general duty to prosecute their claims. See Fid. Phila. Tr. Co. v. Pioche 22 Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). To “prevent undue delays in the disposition 23 of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts,” federal courts 24 may exercise their inherent power to dismiss a case of their own accord for a plaintiff’s failure to l prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962); see also Hells Canyon Pres. 2 Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (finding that courts may dismiss 3 cases sua sponte pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute). 4 Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that: 5 e Not later than May 26, 2025, Mr. Oravetz shall show cause in writing why this 6 case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the 7 Court’s March 21, 2025 Notice of Filing Deficiency. Dkt. 8. g e The Court will dismiss this case without prejudice if Mr. Oravetz fails to respond 9 by this deadline. 10 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 11 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 12 Dated this 12th day of May, 2025. Lag 14 Tiffanty-M. Cartwright United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

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

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 MARK ORAVETZ, Case No. 3:25-cv-05243-TMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. 10 GRAY WOLF STORAGE, 11 Defendant. 12 13

14 I. ORDER 15 This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On March 21, 2025, the Court 16 issued a Notice of Filing Deficiency in Plaintiff Mark Oravetz’s case. Dkt. 8. The Court directed 17 Mr. Oravetz to re-submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) using the correct 18 form attached to the Court’s order by April 21, 2025. See Dkt. 8-1. Mr. Oravetz has not filed a 19 corrected IFP application, nor has he requested an additional extension of time to fix the 20 deficiency. 21 Plaintiffs have a general duty to prosecute their claims. See Fid. Phila. Tr. Co. v. Pioche 22 Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). To “prevent undue delays in the disposition 23 of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts,” federal courts 24 may exercise their inherent power to dismiss a case of their own accord for a plaintiff’s failure to l prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962); see also Hells Canyon Pres. 2 Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (finding that courts may dismiss 3 cases sua sponte pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute). 4 Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that: 5 e Not later than May 26, 2025, Mr. Oravetz shall show cause in writing why this 6 case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the 7 Court’s March 21, 2025 Notice of Filing Deficiency. Dkt. 8. g e The Court will dismiss this case without prejudice if Mr. Oravetz fails to respond 9 by this deadline. 10 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 11 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 12 Dated this 12th day of May, 2025. Lag 14 Tiffanty-M. Cartwright United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Oravetz v. Gray Wolf Storage, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oravetz-v-gray-wolf-storage-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack