Wade v. Garland

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 7 CHANTISSA D. WADE, CASE NO. C25-0983-KKE 8 Plaintiff(s), v. ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 9 VERNESSA GARLAND, et al., FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Defendant(s). 10 On August 6, 2025, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Chantissa D. Wade’s complaint without 11 prejudice and ordered Wade to file an amended complaint by September 8, 2025. Dkt. No. 7 at 5. 12 After setting forth the deficiencies in Wade’s complaint, the Court warned that the “action may be 13 dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to obey the Court’s order.” Id. Despite the Court’s 14 order, Wade failed to timely file an amended complaint. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 41(b), courts have discretion to dismiss a case “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with 16 … a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Courts may, on their own motion, dismiss a case for 17 failure to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962). Because Wade 18 failed to comply with the Court’s order, the Court dismisses the case without prejudice pursuant 19 to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 20 Dated this 16th day of September, 2025. 21 22 A 23 Kymberly K. Evanson United States District Judge 24