Sambrano v. Mabus

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for want of prosecution plaintiff-federal employee’s action challenging EEOC determination that her claims of race, sex, age and disability discrimination were unsupported, where one year had elapsed without plaintiff taking any action in case after Dist. Ct. had denied her motion for judgment on pleadings. Ct. of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s claim that Local Rule 41.1, which permits dismissals for want of prosecution, was unconstitutional and noted that plaintiff had failed to comply with Circuit Rule 30(a), where plaintiff had failed to attach Dist. Ct.’s memoranda that explained basis for dismissal, as well as basis for denial of plaintiff’s subsequent ex parte motion to vacate said dismissal. Ct. also held that violation of Circuit Rule 30 was sanctionable and issued Rule to Show Cause requiring plaintiff’s counsel to show why he should not be subject to monetary sanctions and discipline for filing frivolous appeal and for violating Circuit Rule 30(a).