Wilson v. Nelson

United States District Court for the District of Delaware

Wilson v. Nelson

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MALIK JARON WILSON, : \ Plaintiff, . v. Civ. No. 19-835-RGA NELSON, et al., . Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington this _/@ _ day of February, 2020; 1. On January 16, 2020, the Court entered an order for Plaintiff to show cause, on or before February 4, 2020, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, pursuant to D. Del. LR 41.1. (See D.I. 23). Plaintiff did not respond to the show cause order. 2. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), a court may dismiss an action “[flor failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with [the Federal Rules] or any order of court....” Although dismissal is an extreme sanction that should only be used in limited circumstances, dismissal is appropriate if a party fails to prosecute the action. Harris v. City of Philadelphia,

47 F.3d 1311, 1330

(3d Cir. 1995). 3. The following six factors determine whether dismissal is warranted: (1) The extent of the party’s personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery; (3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of other

sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense. Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.,

747 F.2d 863, 868

(3d Cir. 1984); see also Hildebrand v. Allegheny Cty.,

923 F.3d 128

(3d Cir. 2019). The Court must balance the factors and need not find that all of them weigh against Plaintiff to dismiss the action. Emerson v. Thiel Coll.,

296 F.3d 184

, 190 (3d Cir. 2002). 4. Several factors warrant the sanction of dismissal including Plaintiff having taken no action since August 9, 2019, Defendant having filed a motion to dismiss and Plaintiff having failed to file an answering brief as ordered by the Court, and Plaintiff's failure to prosecute the case. THEREFORE, it is ordered that: 1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DISMISSED (D.I. 18) as moot. 2. The Complaint is DISMISSED for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this case. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown