Reevis v. Yakima Competency Restoration Center

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: September 10, 2021
• Docket: 1:21-cv-03040
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Sep 10, 2021 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 CHARLES JOSEPH REEVIS, NO: 1:21-CV-03040-RMP 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 9 v. 10 YAKIMA COMPETENCY 11 RESTORATION CENTER,

12 Defendant.

14 By Order filed July 12, 2021, the Court instructed Plaintiff Charles Joseph 15 Reevis to provide his current mailing address and documents to proceed in forma 16 pauperis. ECF No. 5. The Order was mailed to Plaintiff at Spokane County 17 Detention Services. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to respond would 18 result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. Id. at 2. Plaintiff did 19 not respond to the Court’s Order and has filed nothing further in this action. 20 1 DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER 2 “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may 3 dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.” Ferdik v. 4 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). The district court should consider

5 five factors when deciding whether to dismiss a case for failure to obey a court 6 order: 7 (1) The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 8 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 9 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (citations omitted). 10 The first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The need to manage the 11 docket and the public’s interests are served by a quick resolution of civil rights 12 litigation. The third factor also favors dismissal. Defendants will not be 13 prejudiced if the claims are dismissed because the defendants have not yet been 14 served. Only the fourth factor arguably weighs against dismissal. Only the fourth

15 factor arguably weighs against dismissal, but the resolution of the filing fee 16 requirement, and whether Plaintiff qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis, must 17 occur before reaching the merits of Plaintiff’s case, in any event. ECF Nos. 4 and 18 5. As for the fifth factor, the only less drastic alternative would be to allow

19 Plaintiff yet more time to comply with the Court’s directive. Plaintiff, however, 20 already has had nearly two months in which to supply the required information; 1 and Plaintiff failed to do so. Allowing a further extension would frustrate the 2 purpose of the first two factors; therefore, the fifth factor favors dismissal. On 3 balance, the four factors that favor dismissal outweigh the one that does not. 4 Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1263 (citing, Malone v. United States Postal Serv, 833 F.2d

5 128, 133 n.2 (9th Cir. 1987) (four factors heavily supporting dismissal outweigh 6 one against dismissal). 7 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

8 1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to obey a court 9 order. 10 2. This case is CLOSED. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is DIRECTED to enter

12 this Order, provide a copy to Plaintiff at his last known address and CLOSE the 13 file. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this 14 Order would not be taken in good faith and would lack any arguable basis in law or

15 fact. 16 DATED September 10, 2021. 17

18 s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON 19 United States District Judge 20