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.

Carl v. State

United States District Court, D. Utah

January 15, 2020

SHANE R. CARL, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF UTAH et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION & DISMISSAL ORDER

          TENA CAMPBELL JUDGE

         BACKGROUND

         • July 27, 2018 Order entered granting in forma pauperis application and requiring filing of inmate-account statement; Complaint and account statement filed. (Doc. Nos. 2, 3, 6.)

         • October 2, 2018 Order entered requiring consent to pay filing fee. (Doc. No. 10.)

         • October 10, 2018 Change of address filed. (Doc. No. 11.)

         • October 22, 2018 Order entered requiring Plaintiff to within thirty days cure deficient complaint. (Doc. No. 15.)

         • December 4, 2018 Time extension granted for Plaintiff to file amended complaint. (Doc. No. 18.)

         • January 7, 2019 Amended Complaint filed. (Doc. No. 21.)

         • February 4, 2019 Order to Show Cause entered requiring Plaintiff to file consent to collection of filing fee or face dismissal. (Doc. No. 22.)

         • February 21, 2019 Consent to collection of filing fee filed. (Doc. No. 23.)

         • May 23, 2019 Order entered requiring Plaintiff to within thirty days cure deficient amended complaint. (Doc. No. 25.)

         The Court has not heard from Plaintiff since February 21, 2019 (nearly eleven months ago). The docket shows the Court does not have Plaintiff's current mailing address.

         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). 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 1404, ...


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.