In Re: Quiroga

Background

Rudolfo Valentin Quiroga, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a notice of appeal in the district court on September 3, 2019. He did not file a legal memorandum supporting the appeal or an affirmation stating that he had served the opposing party. The opinion does not identify the opposing party or describe the underlying dispute.

On June 19, 2020, the Court issued an order to show cause directing Quiroga to explain by July 10, 2020, why the appeal should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Quiroga did not respond.

Court’s Analysis

Rule 41(b) permits dismissal for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order. The Court considered five factors: the length of the party’s failures, whether the party had notice that dismissal could result, likely prejudice to the opposing party, the Court’s need to manage its docket compared with the party’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction would be effective.

The Court concluded that all five factors favored dismissal. Quiroga had made no filings in the appeal for more than ten months. He had been warned that failing to respond to the order to show cause could result in dismissal. The Court stated that prejudice from the substantial delay could be presumed, that Quiroga had received a fair opportunity to be heard, and that dismissal was appropriate because he had not followed the applicable bankruptcy-procedure deadlines or responded to the Court’s order.

Disposition

Judge Analisa Torres dismissed the appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case and mail a copy of the order to Quiroga. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.