SUSAN WRIGHT, Chief Judge, District
Plaintiffs Jason R. Jeanie Y. Henderson, both of whom are proceeding pro se, filed this action on April 9, 2003, seeking review of an administrative determination made by the Internal Revenue Service with regard to the collection of a frivolous return penalty assessed against Jason Henderson. On April 8, 2004, the government filed a motion to compel responses to written discovery [doc.#12]. Plaintiffs failed to respond to the government's motion and this Court, by Order dated April 27, 2004 [doc.#14], granted the government's motion to compel. Plaintiffs were ordered to provide full and complete responses to the government's First Set of Interrogatories and Request For the Production of Documents (Ex. A to the government's motion) within ten (10) days of the date of entry of the order, and were warned that failure to comply with the Order to compel may result in sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, including possible dismissal of this action.
By Order dated May 14, 2003, plaintiffs were informed that as they are proceeding pro se, they are required to be familiar and comply with all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the Local Rules of this Court, and that failure to so complycan result in dismissal of plaintiff's claim.
Now before the Court is the government's motion to dismiss for failure to comply with this Court's Order compelling discovery [doc.#16]. The government states that plaintiffs have refused to cooperate in the discovery process, failed to file an answer to it's motion to compel, and violated this Court's Order compelling discovery. The government states that plaintiffs' failure to provide discovery has prejudiced its ability to resolve or properly litigate this matter.
The trial of this matter is scheduled to begin on August 2, 2004.
The time for filing a response to the government's motion to dismiss has long since passed with no responsive pleading being filed by plaintiffs. It appears that plaintiffs are no longer interested in pursing this action. In any case, having considered the matter under the standards articulated in Keefer v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 238 F.3d 937, 940 (8th Cir. 2001) (dismissal may be considered as a sanction only if there is an order compelling discover, a willful violation of that order, and prejudice to the other party), the Court finds that this action should be and hereby is dismissed without prejudice. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.