Moseley v. State of Washington

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE JAMES MOSELEY, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C20-1311-JCC-MLP 10 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., 12 Defendants.

14 On April 12, 2022, this Court previous struck all deadlines in this matter, pursuant to the parties’ stipulated request, pending resolution of Plaintiff’s mental health issues precluding his ability to meaningfully participate in preparation of this case for trial. (Dkt. # 25.) On July 20, 2022, the parties’ submitted a joint status report (“JSR”) representing that Plaintiff’s ability to assist in the prosecution of this case still remained indeterminate at that time. (Dkt. # 26.) Based on the parties’ representations, this Court authorized the parties to submit an updated JSR by August 22, 2022, advising the Court of Plaintiff’s condition and ability to assist in the preparation of this case for trial and proposing a new trial date and pretrial deadlines. (Dkt. # 27.)

22 To date, neither party has filed an update with the Court.

1 It is within the inherent power and discretion of the court to dismiss a civil case for lack of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to prosecute must be unreasonable in order to support dismissal); Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 4 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984). The Court weighs five factors to determine if involuntary dismissal for lack of prosecution is proper. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)). Specifically, the Court considers: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Id. Dismissal is proper where at least four factors support dismissal or where at least three factors “strongly” support dismissal. Beck v. Pike, 2017 WL 530354, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 9, 2017) (quoting Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998)).

13 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause by September 9, 2022, why the Court should not dismiss the complaint in this matter for failure to prosecute. Absent a timely response to this Order, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to the Honorable John C. Coughenour.

17 Dated this 30th day of August, 2022.

A 19 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge