Mitchell et al v. Boyd et al

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 2:25-cv-00449-BLW
Document 5 Filed 02/17/26
Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
DANIEL R MITCHELL,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00449-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER
Plaintiff,
V. DANA BOYD, et al.,
Defendants.
On October 22, 2025, the Court denied Mitchell's application to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 4. That order instructed Mitchell to pay the filing fee within 30 days of the issuance of that order or his case would be dismissed without further notice. Id. Over 30 days have passed and he has not paid the filing fee or submitted an updated application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court has the inherent authority to dismiss his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a Court order. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962).
Before dismissing an action pursuant to Rule 41(b), the Court must weigh several factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2)
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER - 1
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO

MEMORANDUM D ECISION & ORDER - 2
the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants;
(4) the public policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the
availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423
(9th Cir. 1986). “The first two factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most
cases, while the fourth factor cuts against a default or dismissal sanction. Thus the
key factors are prejudice and available of lesser sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnston,
910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990).
Indeed, the first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal here. Mitchell’s
failure to respond to the Court’s order makes it difficult to expeditiously resolve
his claim and for the Court to manage its docket. The fourth factor, as always,
cautions against dismissal. As to the two decisive factors, the defendants will not
suffer any prejudice from the dismissal of this action and given Mitchell’s apparent
abandonment of his claim, dismissal seems to be the only realistic sanction.
That said, pursuant to Rule 41(b) dismissal for failure to prosecute operates
as an adjudication on the merits unless the dismissal order states otherwise.
Dismissing Mitchell’s claim without prejudice and not on the merits would serve
as a less drastic sanction than dismissal with prejudice. Taking into account
Mitchell’s pro se status, dismissal with prejudice would be “unnecessarily harsh.”
Smith v. Mantilla, No. CV-23-00003-TUC-JGZ, 2024 WL 1156585, at *1 (D.
Case 2:25-cv-00449-BLW Document 5 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 4

MEMORANDUM D ECISION & ORDER - 3
Ariz. Mar. 18, 2025). Thus, the Court will dismiss Mitchell’s Complaint without
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that this matter be dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DATED: February 17, 2026
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00449-BLW Document 5 Filed 02/17/26 Page 3 of 4

Case 2:25-cv-00449-BLW Document5 Filed 02/17/26 Page 4of4

MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER - 4