Manning v. McGahey
1:21-cv-03129
D. Colo.
Mar 8, 2022
Check Treatment
Docket

SITGES MANNING v. ROBERT L. MCGAHEY; SITGES MANNING v. GOVERNOR‘S PLACE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, еt al.

Civil Action No. 21-cv-03129-NYW; Civil Action No. 21-cv-03186-NYW; Civil Action No. 21-cv-03187-NYW

United States District Court for the District of Colorado

March 8, 2022

Nina Y. Wang, United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Sitges Manning (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Manning“)‘s failure to respond to this court‘s Order to Show Cause dated February 3, 2022; failure to appear at court-ordered Status Conferences; and purported failure to prosecute.

BACKGROUND

On November 19, 2021, Plaintiff initiated a civil action pro se against Robert L. McGahey in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado: Civil Action No. 21-cv-03129-NYW (the “First Action“). See [First Action, Doc. 1].1 Then, on November 26, 2021, Plaintiff initiated two additional actions in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, again proceeding pro se: Civil Action No. 21-cv-03186-NYW (the “Second Action“) and Civil Action No. 21-cv-03187-NYW (the “Third Action“). See [Second Action, Doc. 1]; [Third Action, Doc. 1].2 Each of these cases was directly assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1(c). See [First Action, Doc. 2]; [Second Action, Doc. 2]; [Third Action, Doc. 2].

In each of the pending actions, the court issued a Minute Order setting a Telephonic Status Conference for February 3, 2022: at 10:00 a.m. in the First Action, see [First Action, Doc. 4]; at 11:00 a.m. in the Second Action, see [Second Action, Doc. 4]; and at 11:30 a.m. in the Third Action. See [Third Action, Doc. 4]. In addition, the court set, in each case, the deadline for the filing of the Consent/Non-Consent Form, indicating either unanimous consent of the Parties or that consent had been declined, for January 20, 2022. [First Action, Doc. 4 at 1]; [Second Action, Doc. 4 аt 2]; [Third Action, Doc. 4 at 2]. Each of these Minute Orders was mailed to Plaintiff at Plaintiff‘s provided address. See [First Action, Doc. 5]; [Second Action, Doc. 5]; [Third Action, Doc. 5]. The Minute Orders were not returned to the court as undeliverable.

The сourt convened for each of the Telephonic Status Conferences on February 3, 2022 as set by the court‘s Minute Orders. Plaintiff did not appear at any of the Telephonic Status Conferences. Nor, to the best of thе court‘s knowledge, did Plaintiff attempt to call ‍‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‍chambers to advise the court of any emergent reason for her non-attendance. In addition, Plaintiff did not file a completed Consent Form in any of the pending actions by this court‘s January 20, 2022 deadline, nor did Plaintiff seek relief from this deadline.

Because Plaintiff failed to comply with multiple orders of the court, the court issued an Order to Show Cause in each pending action on February 3, 2022. See [First Action, Doc. 6]; [Second Action, Doc. 6]; [Third Action, Doc. 6]. Specifically, the court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, in writing and on or before February 25, 2022, why the pending actions should not be dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff‘s failure tо prosecute. The court specifically advised Plaintiff that “the failure to respond to th[e] Order to Show Cause may result in this court recommending that the First Action, Second Action, and Third Action be dismissed without prejudice, without further warning of the court.” [First Action, Doc. 6 at 4]; [Second Action, Doc. 6 at 4]; [Third Action, Doc. 6 at 4].

Plaintiff did not respond to the Order to Show Cause by the court‘s deadline. On February 14, 2022, the Order to Show Cause was returned to this court as undeliverable. See [First Action, Doc. 8]. Plaintiff has not filed any notice of change of address to inform the court of a change in her contact information. This Recommendation follows.

ANALYSIS

The Local Rules of Practice require pro se parties to maintain current contact infоrmation and file a notice of change of address within five days of the date of the change. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 5.1(c). In addition, Local Rule of Practice 41.1 provides:

A judicial officer may issue an order to show cause why a case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecutiоn or for failure to comply with these rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or any court order. If good cause is not shown within the time set in the show cause order, a district judge or a magistrate judge exercising consent jurisdiction may enter an order of dismissal with or without prejudice.

D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1. Similarly, Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court may dismiss a party‘s claims if a party “fails to prosecute or comply with [the Federal Rules] or a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “A district court undoubtedly has discretion to sanction a party for failing to prosecute or defend a case, or for failing to comply with local or federal procedural rules.” ; .

Although Plaintiff proceeds pro se, a party‘s pro se status does not exempt her from complying with the procedural rules that govern all civil actions filed in this District—namely, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the District of Colorado. See . Thе court plays a neutral role in the litigation process and cannot assume the role of an advocate for the pro se party. .

Here, the court finds that Ms. Manning has failed to comply with Local Rule 5.1 by not informing the court of any сhange in her mailing address within five days of that change. Because this court received its Order to Show Cause returned as undeliverable on February 14, 2022, see [First Action, Doc. 8], this court can only assume that five days have passed sinсe Plaintiff‘s address changed. This court is mindful that Plaintiff has indicated that she is currently unhoused. See, e.g., [First Action, Doc. 1 at 1]. While the court is ‍‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‍sympathetic to the challenges faced by a litigant who may not have a permanent address and who is unable to maintain a consistent mailing address, Plaintiff‘s failure to keep the court informed of her current contact information has resulted in the court‘s inability to contact Plaintiff and has rendered the progression of this litigation impossible. See (“[T]he matter is at a standstill without Plaintiff‘s presence in the case and [she] is the only one who can change the situation.“). Indeed, the lack of viable contact information for Plaintiff precludes this court‘s ability to re-send the Order to Show Cause or otherwise alert Plaintiff of the risk of dismissal.

“Just as Defendant[] [is] burdened by Plaintiff‘s failure to provide a current address . . . so, too, is the Court.” . Plaintiff‘s failure to follow the Local Rules provides a basis for dismissal of this case without prejudice. See , report and recommendation adopted, (recommending that a case be dismissed due to, in part, the plaintiff‘s failure to file a notice оf change of address).

In addition, by failing to appear at the court-ordered Status Conferences and failure to respond to this court‘s Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff has violated multiple Orders of the court, which provides an additional basis for dismissal of this action. See . Under Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court is charged with administering the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Without any action from Plaintiff, the court is unable to fulfill this function. And because this litigation cannot proceed without Plaintiff‘s participation, and because it appears that this сourt has no way of contacting ‍‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‍Plaintiff to inform her of any court deadlines or other orders, the court finds that Plaintiff‘s failure to comply with Orders of this court and this District‘s Local Rules has amounted to a failure to prosecutе.3

Given Plaintiff‘s failure to comply with Orders of this court and this District‘s Local Rules, in addition to the fact that this litigation cannot proceed, the court finds that dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute is appropriate. See (noting a district court‘s inherent power to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute). For the reasons set forth herein, this court respectfully RECOMMENDS that the First Action, Second Action, and Third Action be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute, failure to follow court orders, and failure to comply with the Local Rules. See , report and recommendation adopted, (recommending dismissal without prejudice based on the plaintiff‘s failure to file a nоtice of change of address, failure to respond to an order to show cause, failure to comply with the Local Rules, and failure to prosecute).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, it is ORDERED that:

  1. The Clerk of Court SHALL REASSIGN the First Action (21-cv-03129-NYW), the Second Action (21-cv-03186-NYW), аnd the Third Action (21-cv-03187-NYW) to a District Judge.

Additionally, this court respectfully RECOMMENDS that:

  1. The First Action, Second Action, and Third Action be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute, failure to follow the Local Rules, and failure to comply with court orders.4

A copy of this Order and Recommendation SHALL BE SENT to Plaintiff at Plaintiff‘s only known address:

Sitges Manning
4077 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92103

DATED: March 8, 2022

BY THE COURT:

Nina Y. Wang

United States Magistrate Judge

Notes

1
Because this Order and Recommendation is applicable in multiple active cases, the court refers to docket entries by both the action and the dоcket number.
2
The Second Action is brought against 38 separate Defendants, see [Second Action, Doc. 1], and the Third Action names 32 separate Defendants. See [Third Action, Doc. 1].
3
In addition, the court notes that Plaintiff‘s deаdline to serve the Defendant in the First Action was February ‍‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‍17, 2022, and the deadline to serve the Defendants in the Second and Third Actions was February 24, 2022. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (setting the deadline to serve at 90 days after the complaint is filed). Based on thе dockets in each of the pending actions, it does not appear that any named Defendants in any action have been served. If a defendant is not served within 90 days of the filing of the complaint, the court, “on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff . . . must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (emphasis added). Here, the Order to Show Cause was entered prior to the expiration of the service deadlines, and thus, the Order to Show Cause did not include notice to Plaintiff that the pending actions may be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m) for failure to serve. See, e.g., [First Action, Doc. 6]. For this reason, failure to serve under Rule 4(m) does not serve as a basis for this court‘s Recommendation. Rather, the court simply notes Plaintiff‘s failure to serve so as to provide additional context to the stagnant nature of the First, Second, and Third Actions.
4
Within fourteen days after service of a copy of the Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to the Magistrate Judge‘s proposed findings and recommendatiоns with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); . A general objection that does not put the District Court on notice of the basis for the objection will not preserve the objection for de novo review. “[A] pаrty‘s objections to the magistrate judge‘s report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review.” . Failure to make timely objections may bar de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judgе‘s proposed findings and recommendations and will result in a waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the district court based on the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. See (District Court‘s dеcision to review a Magistrate Judge‘s recommendation de novo despite the lack of an objection does not preclude ‍‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‍application of the “firm waiver rule“); (by failing to object tо certain portions of the Magistrate Judge‘s order, cross-claimant had waived its right to appeal those portions of the ruling); (by their failure to file objections, plaintiffs waived their right to appeal the Magistrate Judge‘s ruling). But see (firm waiver rule does not apply when the interests of justice require review).
Read the detailed case summary