Mikanda v. Tacoma Public Defender
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA NEYEMBO NDULWEH MIKANDA, Case No. 3:24-cv-05475-TMC Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO v. PROSECUTE TACOMA PUBLIC DEFENDER et al, Defendants.
14 On June 14, 2024, pro se Plaintiff Neyembo Ndulweh Mikanda initiated this case by filing a proposed complaint. Dkt. 1. However, Mr. Mikanda did not pay the filing fee or request leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The same day, the Court issued a Notice of Filing Deficiency to Mr. Mikanda, informing him of his obligation to either pay the filing fee or file an IFP motion no later than July 15, 2024. Dkt. 2. Mr. Mikanda has not paid the fee or made any filings since the Notice was sent. On July 30, the Court ordered Mr. Mikanda to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute by August 13, 2024. Dkt. 4. The deadline has passed and Mr. Mikanda has not responded to the Court’s order nor made any further filings.
23 Accordingly, the Court dismisses this case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (allowing for involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with the federal rules or court orders); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (courts may dismiss cases sua sponte pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute); Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The district judge has an obligation to warn the plaintiff that dismissal is imminent.”); Grindling v. Kaaukai, 851 F. 6
10 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.
12 Dated this 15th day of August, 2024.
A Tiffany M. Cartwright 15 United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.