Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Thompson

United States District Court, D. Utah

February 4, 2019

CURTIS SCOTT WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
TERRY THOMPSON et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION & DISMISSAL ORDER

          CLARK WADDOUPS, DISTRICT JUDGE.

         BACKGROUND

         • November, 2016 Plaintiff incarcerated at Weber County Jail (WCJ). (Doc. No. 25.)

         • January 20, 2017 Plaintiff files Complaint, alleging inadequate medical treatment by WCJ defendants after November 2016. (Doc. No. 3.)

         • November 8, 2017 Plaintiff filed change of address. (Doc. No. 11.)

         • February 9, 2018 The Court ordered service of process on Defendants. Defendants were ordered to file in sequence answer, Martinez report, and dispositive motion. (Doc. No. 12.) The Order further stated, “If served with a Martinez report and a summary-judgment motion or motion to dismiss, Plaintiff must file a response within thirty days.” (Id. (emphasis added).)

         • March 7, 2018 Defendants filed answer. (Doc. No. 16.)

         • March 14, 2018 Defendant Woods filed motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 21.)

         • June 19, 2018 Defendants filed Martinez report. (Doc. No. 24.)

         • June 19, 2018 Defendants filed Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 25.)

         • January 3, 2019 Plaintiff ordered to within thirty days show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and file responses. (Doc. No. 35.)

         The Court has not heard from Plaintiff since November 8, 2017 (fifteen months ago).

         ANALYSIS

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows involuntary dismissal of an action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with . . . a court order.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). This Court may dismiss actions sua sponte for failure to prosecute. Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003) (“Although the language of Rule 41(b) requires that the defendant file a motion to dismiss, the Rule has long been interpreted to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with . . . court orders.”); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (stating court has inherent authority to clear “calendar[] of cases that have remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief”); Bills v. United States, 857 F.2d 1404, 1405 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.