Henderson v. Duncan
- Decided
- January 7, 1986
- Docket
- No. 84-2708
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,439 timesOverruled on other grounds (verified)Overruled on other grounds (verified) · Brum v. MarketSource, Inc.
What later courts said
- holding that district courts have “inherent power sua sponte to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.” — Barrett v. Empire Airlines. Inc. (2023)
- holding that dismissal was within the court’s discretion after the plaintiff received at least three initial warnings of dismissal as well as a status conference to try to remedy the problem — Abandonato v. Stuart (In Re Stuart) (1988)
- holding that absence of prejudice 2 not dispositive in the face of “inordinate delay” — In re: William F. Garlock (2017)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
OPINION TANG, Circuit Judge:
After several explicit warnings, the district court dismissed this suit with prejudice upon the failure of plaintiff’s counsel to submit a pretrial order in accordance with Local Rule 42(c) on or before the fourth extended due date. We affirm the dismissal.
FACTS Under Local Rule 42(c), District of Arizona, a proposed pretrial order must be sub [*1423] mitted by the date fixed by the court and is to be made “upon the initiative of counsel for the plaintiff....” The parties were ordered originally to submit their order by August 28, 1983. In August 1983, because plaintiff’s answers to interrogatories were insufficient to allow defendant to prepare for the pretrial filing, the district court extended the deadline for filing the Rule 42(c) order until December 30, 1983. The extension carried a warning that sanctions would be imposed if the order was not filed timely.
Cite this
Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (1986)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.