United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION & DISMISSAL ORDER
J. Shelby Chief District Judge
March 16, 2016 Petitioner charged with assault. (Doc. No. 7,
July 22, 2016 Petitioner found incompetent for trial and
ordered committed. (Id.)
October 30, 2017 State court found Petitioner met
requirements of Utah's civil commitment statute.
October 31, 2017 Charge dropped after determination that
Petitioner's competency would likely not be restored.
December 5, 2017 Petitioner transferred out of Utah State
Hospital custody and moved to Southwest Behavioral Health
custody. (Id. at 4.)
July 25, 2017 Petitioner submitted federal habeas-corpus
petition. (Doc. No. 1.)
May 29, 2018 Respondent was ordered to answer the petition
and file a proposed order.
No. 6.) The Order stated, “Within thirty days after the
answer and proposed order are filed by Respondent(s),
Petitioner must file any objections.”
(Id. (emphasis added).)
October 3, 2018 Petitioner was ordered to within thirty days
show cause why this action should not be dismissed for
failure to respond to the answer. (Doc. No. 8.)
has not contacted the Court since he submitted his petition
more than twenty months ago.
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows involuntary dismissal of
an action “[i]f the [petitioner] 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 [respondent] file a motion to
dismiss, the Rule has long been interpreted to permit courts
to dismiss actions sua sponte for a
[petitioner'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 ...