Filed: Feb. 19, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 19, 2020
Summary: Order Dismissing and Closing Case JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . On September 30, 2019, the court dismissed all of Plaintiff Pamela J. Roche's claim theories but gave her until October 15, 2019, to file an amended complaint if she could cure the deficiencies identified in the dismissal order. 1 Roche did not file an amended complaint or request to extend her deadline to do so, so I dismiss this action with prejudice and close it. District courts have the inherent power to control t
Summary: Order Dismissing and Closing Case JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . On September 30, 2019, the court dismissed all of Plaintiff Pamela J. Roche's claim theories but gave her until October 15, 2019, to file an amended complaint if she could cure the deficiencies identified in the dismissal order. 1 Roche did not file an amended complaint or request to extend her deadline to do so, so I dismiss this action with prejudice and close it. District courts have the inherent power to control th..
More
Order Dismissing and Closing Case
JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.
On September 30, 2019, the court dismissed all of Plaintiff Pamela J. Roche's claim theories but gave her until October 15, 2019, to file an amended complaint if she could cure the deficiencies identified in the dismissal order.1 Roche did not file an amended complaint or request to extend her deadline to do so, so I dismiss this action with prejudice and close it.
District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and "[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate. . . dismissal" of a case.2 A court may dismiss an action based on a party's failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules.3 In determining whether to dismiss an action on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.4
The first two factors, the public's interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the court's interest in managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal of this case. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action.5 Roche's deadline to amend expired more than four months ago. The fourth factor—the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal.
Because the plaintiff's claims have already been dismissed and plaintiff has failed to comply with the court's order directing her to file an amended complaint by October 15, 2019, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY and CLOSE THIS CASE.
