Summary
The court recommends dismissing Patricia G. Millsaps’s action against State Farm Insurance Companies without prejudice. The recommendation is based on failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to state a claim, after plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, notice of voluntary dismissal, or response to an order to show cause.
Holdings
- A court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, including through the court's inherent docket-management and sanctions powers.
- Dismissal without prejudice was warranted because the public interest in expeditious resolution, the court's need to manage its docket, and the risk of prejudice supported dismissal, and the court's express warning satisfied the requirement to consider less drastic alternatives.
Questions Presented
- Whether the action should be dismissed without prejudice because plaintiff failed to prosecute, failed to comply with court orders, and failed to state a claim.
- Whether the five-factor dismissal analysis supported dismissal despite the policy favoring disposition on the merits.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (8)
- Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)(followed)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-62 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
- Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)(followed)
- Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130, 132-33 (9th Cir. 1987)(followed)
- Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998)(followed)
- Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…