Oravetz v. Gray Wolf Storage

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA 7 MARK ORAVETZ, Case No. 3:25-cv-05243-TMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 9 v. 10 GRAY WOLF STORAGE, 11 Defendant. 12 13

14 On March 17, 2025, Plaintiff Mark Oravetz filed an application to proceed in forma 15 pauperis (“IFP”). The Court issued a Notice of Filing Deficiency, Dkt. 8, and directed 16 Mr. Oravetz to re-submit the IFP application using the correct form attached to the Court’s order 17 by April 21, 2025. See Dkt. 8-1. Mr. Oravetz did not respond. The Court then issued an order to 18 show cause, by no later than May 26, 2025, why the case should not be dismissed without 19 prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s Notice of Filing Deficiency. Dkt. 9 at 2. 20 Plaintiffs have a general duty to prosecute their claims. See Fid. Phila. Tr. Co. v. Pioche 21 Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). To “prevent undue delays in the disposition 22 of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts,” federal courts 23 may exercise their inherent power to dismiss a case of their own accord for a plaintiff’s failure to 24 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 Mr. Oravetz has failed to respond to the Court’s order to show cause by the May 26, 2025 5 deadline. See Dkt. 9. The Court thus DISMISSES Mr. Oravetz’s claims without prejudice. The 6 Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party 7 appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 8 9 Dated this 27th day of May, 2025. 11 TiffanyM. Cartwright United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24