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.

Bogan v. Earnshaw

United States District Court, D. Utah

April 5, 2019

STEPHEN MICHAEL BOGAN, Petitioner,
v.
DALLAS EARNSHAW, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION & DISMISSAL ORDER

          Robert J. Shelby Chief District Judge

         BACKGROUND

         • March 16, 2016 Petitioner charged with assault. (Doc. No. 7, at 3.)

         • 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. (Id.)

         • October 31, 2017 Charge dropped after determination that Petitioner's competency would likely not be restored. (Id.)

         • 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.

         (Doc. 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.)

         Petitioner has not contacted the Court since he submitted his petition more than twenty months ago.

         ANALYSIS

         Federal 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 ...


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.