Quinn v. Calderin

D. Nevada

Quinn v. Calderin

DecidedMay 23, 2022

Docket2:19-cv-00442

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Quinn v. Calderin, (D. Nev. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 TRELLIS QUINN, Case No. 2:19-cv-00442-MMD-DJA

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 JULIO CALDERIN, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Trellis Quinn, who is currently incarcerated at South Desert 12 Correctional Center (“SDCC”), brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 13 (ECF No. 6.) As further explained below, the Court dismisses this case without prejudice 14 for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 15 On January 3, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16 25 (“Motion”)), and Quinn failed to file a response to the Motion. Quinn also did not 17 respond to Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19), which the Court granted 18 in part on June 24, 2021 (ECF No. 21).2 On May 4, 2022, the Court issued an order 19 warning Quinn that it would dismiss this case for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. 20 P. 41(b) if Quinn did not file a response to Defendants’ Motion and a motion seeking a 21 retroactive extension of time, explaining why the Court should consider his late response, 22 by May 18, 2022. (ECF No. 27.) To date, Quinn has failed to comply with the Court’s 23 order, or take any further action in this case. The Court accordingly dismisses this case 24 without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. 25 26 1After screening, the remaining Defendants in this case are Julio Calderin, James 27 Dzurenda, Jesus Leavitt, Bruce Martin, Teddy Miro, Jennifer Nash, James Sutton, Arnold Toombs, Dean Whirley, and Brian Williams. (ECF Nos. 21 at 1-2, 25 at 1.) 28 2It appears that Quinn has not taken action in this case since he participated in an 1 || Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff's 2 || action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted”); 3 || Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack 4 || of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 5 It is therefore ordered that this case is dismissed, in its entirety, without prejudice. 6 It is further ordered that Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment (ECF 7 || No. 25) is denied as moot. 8 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 9 DATED THIS 23" Day of May 2022. 10 —~ 11 {Sh 12 MIRANDA M. DU 13 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 TRELLIS QUINN, Case No. 2:19-cv-00442-MMD-DJA

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 JULIO CALDERIN, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Trellis Quinn, who is currently incarcerated at South Desert 12 Correctional Center (“SDCC”), brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 13 (ECF No. 6.) As further explained below, the Court dismisses this case without prejudice 14 for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 15 On January 3, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16 25 (“Motion”)), and Quinn failed to file a response to the Motion. Quinn also did not 17 respond to Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19), which the Court granted 18 in part on June 24, 2021 (ECF No. 21).2 On May 4, 2022, the Court issued an order 19 warning Quinn that it would dismiss this case for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. 20 P. 41(b) if Quinn did not file a response to Defendants’ Motion and a motion seeking a 21 retroactive extension of time, explaining why the Court should consider his late response, 22 by May 18, 2022. (ECF No. 27.) To date, Quinn has failed to comply with the Court’s 23 order, or take any further action in this case. The Court accordingly dismisses this case 24 without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. 25 26 1After screening, the remaining Defendants in this case are Julio Calderin, James 27 Dzurenda, Jesus Leavitt, Bruce Martin, Teddy Miro, Jennifer Nash, James Sutton, Arnold Toombs, Dean Whirley, and Brian Williams. (ECF Nos. 21 at 1-2, 25 at 1.) 28 2It appears that Quinn has not taken action in this case since he participated in an 1 || Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff's 2 || action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted”); 3 || Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack 4 || of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 5 It is therefore ordered that this case is dismissed, in its entirety, without prejudice. 6 It is further ordered that Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment (ECF 7 || No. 25) is denied as moot. 8 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 9 DATED THIS 23" Day of May 2022. 10 —~ 11 {Sh 12 MIRANDA M. DU 13 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Quinn v. Calderin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quinn-v-calderin-nvd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack