DAVID KYLE ZUFALL, Plaintiff v. ROBERT IRISH, et al., Defendants.

CIV 08-0958 WJ/CG.United States District Court, D. New Mexico.
May 18, 2010

CARMEN GARZA, Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Martinez Report, which they reserved and mailed to Plaintiff’s new address of record and this Court’s order that Plaintiff file his response by April 30, 2010. See Docs. 53-56. The Court’s “Notice Of Filing” shows that the order requiring Plaintiff’s response was mailed to his new address. See Doc. 56 (“NEF”). There is no indication that this Court’s order or Defendant’s Martinez Report have been returned as undeliverable.

To-date, Plaintiff has not filed his response. In the event Plaintiff has moved, he has not advised the Court of his new address as required by D.N.M.LR-Civ 83.6 (“All . . . parties appearing pro se have a continuing duty to notify the Clerk, in writing, of any change in . . . mailing addresses”). He is obviously aware of this requirement because he has filed a notice of change of address in the past. See Doc. 54.

The Court has the inherent power to impose a variety of sanctions on litigants in

Page 2

order to, among other things, regulate its docket and promote judicial efficiency. Martinez v. Internal Revenue Service, 744 F.2d 71, 73 (10th Cir. 1984). One such sanction within the discretion of the Court is to dismiss an action for want of prosecution. E.g., Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 642-43 (1976); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); see also Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 286-87 (1961) (district court may dismiss sua sponte
for failure to comply with order of court); United States ex rel. Jimenez v. Health Net, Inc., 400 F.3d 853, 855 (10th Cir. 2005) (“dismissal is an appropriate disposition against a party who disregards court orders and fails to proceed as required by court rules.”).

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rules and the lack of activity in this case, he will be required to show cause why this case should not be dismissed.


IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT no later than Friday, June 4, 2010, Plaintiff shall file a written document with the Court showing his current address and showing cause why this case should not be dismissed. Plaintiff is also hereby notified that failure to respond to this Order may result in dismissal without further notice.