United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION & DISMISSAL ORDER
STEWART UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
May 1, 2017 Plaintiff filed prisoner civil-rights complaint,
asserting federal civil rights violated in 2014. (Doc. No.
November 1, 2017 Court dismissed Defendant Utah Department of
Corrections and ordered service of process on remaining
defendants. Defendants were ordered to file in sequence an
answer, a Martinez report, and a dispositive motion.
(Doc. No. 13.) Order further stated, “If served with a
summary-judgment motion . . ., Plaintiff must submit
a response within 30 days of the motion's filing
date.” (Id. (emphasis added).)
February 16, 2018 Defendants filed answer. (Doc. No. 27.)
April 11, 2018 Plaintiff moved for time extension for
response to answer. (Doc. No. 36.)He states, “If for
any reason plaintiff cannot obtain counsel by June 10, 2018
he will be prepared to respond to defendant[s], point for
May 7, 2018 Court denied motion for time extension, noting,
“There is no procedural rule allowing a response to
answers.” (Doc. No. 37.)
May 17, 2018 Defendants filed Martinez report. (Doc.
June 18, 2018 Defendants filed Motion for Summary Judgment.
(Doc. No. 42.)
June 21, 2018 Defendants filed notice of change of address
for Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 44.)
December 21, 2018 Court ordered Plaintiff to within thirty
days show cause why action should not be dismissed for
failure to prosecute and file response. (Doc. No. 46.)
Court has not heard from Plaintiff since April 11, 2018 (over
ten months ago).
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).
The Court may dismiss actions sua sponte for failure
to prosecute. Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204
n.3 (10th Cir. 2003) (stating, though Rule 41(b) requires
defendant file motion to dismiss, Rule has long been
construed to let courts dismiss actions sua sponte
when plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with 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