Williams v. Phoenix Law PC

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 CURTIS WILLIAMS, Case No. 3:23-cv-05437-TMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 9 PREJUDICE v. 10 PHOENIX LAW PC, 11 Defendant. 12 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On November 3, 2023, the Court 15 denied Plaintiff Curtis Williams’ motion for default judgment and gave him 21 days to file a 16 revised damages calculation or a new motion explaining his liability theory against Defendant 17 Phoenix Law PC. Dkt. 16. This deadline passed without Williams making any filings. On 18 December 12, 2023, the Court gave Williams 14 days to show cause why the case should not be 19 dismissed for failure to prosecute. Dkt. 17 at 2. The Court warned Williams that failure to 20 comply with the order would result in dismissal of his case without prejudice. Id. Williams again 21 did not make any filings by this deadline. 22 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to 23 prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (allowing for involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute 24 1 or failure to comply with the federal rules or court orders); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. 2 Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (courts may dismiss cases sua sponte pursuant to 3 Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute); Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The

4 district judge has an obligation to warn the plaintiff that dismissal is imminent.”); Villalobos v. 5 Vilsack, 601 F. App’x 551, 552 (9th Cir. 2015) (upholding district court’s dismissal without 6 prejudice for failure to prosecute after the plaintiff did not respond to the court’s order to show 7 cause). 8 Dated this 28th day of December, 2023. 9 A 10 Tiffany M. Cartwright 11 United States District Court Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24