Hood v. Commercial Enterprises Inc.
1:23-cv-01024
| D.N.M. | Jun 11, 2024Background
- Tristan W. Hood, proceeding pro se, filed suit against Commercial Enterprises Inc., Grancore Enterprises Inc., and Central and Northern NM Apprenticeship Training Program.
- Plaintiff participated in early procedural steps, including a scheduling conference and providing a status report.
- Since April 2024, Plaintiff ceased participating: did not respond to motions, did not engage in settlement process, and ignored court orders.
- Defendant Central & Northern NM Apprenticeship Training Program moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute.
- The Court issued an Order to Show Cause which Plaintiff ignored and also did not appear at a required pre-settlement conference.
- Magistrate Judge recommended the case be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute | [No response provided] | Plaintiff failed to prosecute and comply with orders | Dismissed without prejudice |
| Adequacy of Court Warnings | [No response provided] | Plaintiff was warned dismissal would follow noncompliance | Warning adequate; dismissal appropriate |
| Prejudice to Defendants | [No response provided] | Plaintiff’s inactivity prejudiced defense preparations | Some prejudice found |
| Effectiveness of Lesser Sanctions | [No response provided] | No lesser sanction would be effective | Lesser sanctions inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2003) (Rule 41(b) allows dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders)
- Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2007) (Dismissal without prejudice is less harsh and allows plaintiff to refile)
- Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916 (10th Cir. 1992) (Outlines five factors courts consider before imposing dismissal as a sanction)
- Petty v. Manpower, Inc., 591 F.2d 615 (10th Cir. 1979) (Court’s reasoning for dismissal must rest on procedural history)