Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stone v. City of Philadelphia

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

September 24, 2018

NANETTE STONE, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Judge Nina Wright Padilla, Judge Margaret Murphy; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PROBATE COURT, Ronald Donatucci, Register of Wills, Staff and Associates; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA CITY COUNCIL, City Council President, Darryl Clark and Council Members; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Commissioner of DHS; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, Police Commissioner Ross; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA FIRE DEPARTMENT AND EMS SERVICES, Fire Departments and Commissioners; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA LAW DEPARTMENT, Law Dept. Leadership Vernette Dow; Philadelphia Housing Authority; Philadelphia Housing, Defendants.

          ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

          HELEN GILLMOR JUDGE

         The case before the Court arises out of alleged harassment and discrimination that Plaintiff claims occurred in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, by the City of Philadelphia, a number of Philadelphia city agencies, and Philadelphia city government officials.

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (b), the Court dismisses Plaintiff's case for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to comply with the Local Rules for the District of Hawaii, and failure to comply with the Court's Orders.

         Plaintiff's lawsuit is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

         PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On March 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint. (ECF No. 1).

         Also on March 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, a Request for Appointment of Counsel, and a Motion to Seal. (ECF Nos. 3, 4, 6).

         On March 16, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation to Dismiss the Complaint and Deny the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and an Order Denying Plaintiff's Request for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 8). The Magistrate Judge also issued an Order Denying the Motion to Request Seal of Record. (ECF No. 7).

         Also on March 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Addendum to her Complaint. (ECF No. 10).

         On April 13, 2018, the District Court issued an Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation to Dismiss the Complaint and Deny the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as Modified. (ECF No. 14).

         On April 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed two pleadings. The first was entitled, (Amend) EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT. (ECF No. 15). The second was entitled, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. (ECF No. 15-3).

         Also on April 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, a Request for Appointment of Counsel, and a Motion to Seal. (ECF Nos. 16, 17, 18).

         On April 23, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order Denying Motion to Seal, an Order Denying Plaintiff's Second Request for Appointment of Counsel, and an Order Granting Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF Nos. 19, 20, 21) .

         On April 24, 2018, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to clarify which document was her operative pleading. (ECF No. 22).

         On May 8, 2018, Plaintiff requested an extension of time. (ECF No. 23).

         On May 10, 2018, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff's request for an extension of time. (ECF No. 24).

         On May 18, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a letter stating that all the information previously submitted constitutes her operative complaint. (ECF No. 25).

         On May 24, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order striking both of Plaintiff's April 18, 2018 pleadings. (ECF No. 27). The Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint by no later than June 22, 2018. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

         On June 20, 2018, Plaintiff sent an email to the Court stating that her mailing address had changed from an address in Honolulu to an address in Philadelphia. (ECF No. 30).

         On July 6, 2018, Plaintiff failed to appear to a scheduling conference. (ECF No. 32). Although Plaintiff did not request to appear by telephone, the Magistrate Judge attempted to reach Plaintiff at the telephone number on record without success.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets. In the exercise of their power, courts may impose sanctions, including, where appropriate, dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute. Thompson v. Housing Authority of City ofLos Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.