Summary
This United States District Court for the District of Nevada order dismisses the pro se plaintiff's employment discrimination lawsuit against his former employer's HR partner with prejudice. The court found that the plaintiff repeatedly failed to file an amended complaint as ordered, prompting the judge to apply the standard factors for dismissal based on non-compliance. After weighing the public interest, docket management, lack of prejudice to defendants, and absence of less drastic alternatives, the court concluded that dismissal was warranted. The clerk is directed to enter judgment and close the case.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court may dismiss the action for the plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint as ordered.
Holdings
- The court may dismiss the action with prejudice when the plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint after being ordered to do so, after considering the relevant dismissal factors.
Key quotations
“District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a case.” (at 1)
“Having thoroughly considered these dismissal factors, the Court finds that they weigh in favor of dismissal.” (at 1)
Factual background
Ricardo Delacruz Cabugawan, a pro se plaintiff, sued former employer Panasonic's HR Business Partner Monica Dana alleging race, age, and disability discrimination. The district court ordered Cabugawan to amend his complaint to conform with procedural requirements. Cabugawan did not file the required amended complaint despite multiple extensions.
Procedural history
Pro se plaintiff Ricardo Cabugawan filed a complaint alleging race, age, and disability discrimination against HR Business Partner Monica Dana. The court ordered him to file an amended complaint by specific deadlines. He failed to comply, and the court dismissed the action with prejudice.