Glass v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
- James Donato
- 3:16-cv-02142
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Glass v. Housing and Urban Development, Judge Donato dismissed the case without prejudice after plaintiff failed to respond to an order to show cause.
Pro se plaintiff Leigh Glass; the defendants, including the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
What happened
Glass v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development had been inactive since May 9, 2018, when pro se plaintiff Leigh Glass asked to postpone scheduling and a trial date to allow more settlement efforts.
The court ordered Glass to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The response deadline passed without a filing, and the court said Glass appeared to have abandoned the case.
Judge Donato dismissed the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and closed the file after considering the relevant five factors.
The detailed version
- Glass v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development · No. 3:16-cv-02142
- James Donato
- Oct. 7, 2019
Background
The case had been inactive since May 9, 2018. On that date, pro se plaintiff Leigh Glass filed a case-management statement asking to postpone scheduling and the setting of a trial date so that the parties could make further settlement efforts.
On September 13, 2019, the court ordered Glass to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The deadline to respond was September 25, 2019. Glass did not file a response.
Court’s Ruling
The court found that Glass had failed to show cause and appeared to have abandoned the case. Although the court stated that it favors resolving cases on their merits, it considered the five factors identified in Malone v. United States Postal Service and found that dismissal was warranted.
Judge Donato dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(b) and closed the file.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.