United States v. $16,000.00 in United States Currency, 3:19-cv-00319-MMD-WGC. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20191203f61
Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 02, 2019
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff United States of America filed a civil complaint for in rem forfeiture against $16,000.00 in United States Currency ("Property"). (ECF No. 1.) Donald Keith Averill appeared in this matter making a claim to the Property (ECF No. 6). On October 22, 2019, the Court denied Averill's claim with leave to file an amended claim. (ECF No. 11.) Averill had 15 days after the Court issued its order to amend, but has failed to do so to date. ( See
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff United States of America filed a civil complaint for in rem forfeiture against $16,000.00 in United States Currency ("Property"). (ECF No. 1.) Donald Keith Averill appeared in this matter making a claim to the Property (ECF No. 6). On October 22, 2019, the Court denied Averill's claim with leave to file an amended claim. (ECF No. 11.) Averill had 15 days after the Court issued its order to amend, but has failed to do so to date. ( See ..
More
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff United States of America filed a civil complaint for in rem forfeiture against $16,000.00 in United States Currency ("Property"). (ECF No. 1.) Donald Keith Averill appeared in this matter making a claim to the Property (ECF No. 6). On October 22, 2019, the Court denied Averill's claim with leave to file an amended claim. (ECF No. 11.) Averill had 15 days after the Court issued its order to amend, but has failed to do so to date. (See id.) The Court will therefore dismiss his claim to the Property. See, e.g., Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that courts have inherent power to control their dockets and "[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate. . . dismissal"); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order).
It is therefore ordered that Averill's claim (ECF No. 6) is dismissed without prejudice.
Source: Leagle
