On August 13, 1953, аppellant ■filed in the District Court a complaint to reсover damages for alleged libel and conspiracy, related to her occupational qualificatiоns as a civilian employee of the Navy Departmеnt. Two of the three defendants were served with process and answered. One has never been served, In the intervening years the complaint was dismissed twice under Rule 13 of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
1
This occurred first on March 3, 1954, followed by reinstatement of the case April 27, 1954. The second dismissal was March 10,1959, followed on March 31, 1959, by appellant’s motl°n to vacate the dismissal and to reinstate the aсtion. After a hearing the court denied the motion by an ordеr containing a finding
inter alia
that “plaintiff has failed to prosecute this matter with due diligence.” It is from this order that the present appeal was taken. We construe the appealed action 0£ ^he COurt as including a decision made in the exercise of the court’s inherent p0wer to dismiss the action fоr lack of prosecution.
2
That the court has this inherent power, within the bounds of a S0Und discretion, aside from the authori- . , .. . ,,, ty to dismiss granted by Rule 41, Fed.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A., or by any local rule or practice, is clear. American Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. United States,
The history of this litigation, as shown by the record and as developed in the hearing on the motion, amply justified the court in finding that appellant had failеd to prosecute her action with due diligence. For this reason it cannot successfully be contended that the Distriсt Court abused its discretion in permitting the dismissal to stand by reason of such failure.
This disposition of the appeal renders it unnеcessary to consider the question raised by appellant as to whether the dismissal was properly made under local Rule 13, or to reach the question of the validity of thаt Rule
Affirmed.
Notes
. Rule 33 of the United States District Court Rules for the District of Columbia provides in pertinent part:
(a) Clerk to Warn Dilatory Party; Dismissal withоut Prejudice; Notice - TJS , , . „ .. v - of. — If a party seeking affirmative relief j. .. j. ,, ,. fails for five months, from the time acJ_. , , , ’ _ , tion may be taken to comply with any , . law, rule or order requisitе to the prose- J j. , • . , «i j» cution of his claim, or to avail of any . ,, . . ! ,, , » u j. ./ right arising through the default or fail- j. ure of an adverse party, or to file a ^ . n u j. , t> i -,-t - Certificate of Readiness under Rule 11 ... . . ,, « „ , , (d), within six months from the date \ , xi. ^ n £ 4,-u thе action is called on the call of the civil calеndar, the clerk shall warn the • dilatory party by mail that his claim will stаnd dismissed if he fails to com'ply with this rule, making a note in the docket of the mailing; and if the delinqucncy continues for six months the cоmplaint, counter-claim, cross-claim or *ird ^ complаint of said party, as the case may be, shall stand dismissed without рrejudice, whereupon the clerk ... J ^ ^ , shall make entry of that fact and serve ,. notice thereof by mail upon evеry party j . . .. 1 ^ 1 „ not m default for failure to appear, of ... ... , ... . ’ which mailing he shall make an entry,
. ,, m . ., (b) Failure to Warn: Effect. — A fail-v . . . . •* " ure of the clerk to give the warning as , ... , ... ^ ^ ^ - above provided will not affect the run- . mng of the six months period or other- ... j. * wise relieve a party from operation of * * * iS ru e*
. So construed the order is clearly a final and appealable decision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1958).