In Re: Craig Clinton Rominger and Heidi Kay Rominger

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 In Re: CRAIG CLINTON ROMINGER and CASE NO. 2:25-cv-02143-LK 11 HEIDI KAY ROMINGER ORDER DISMISSING CASE 12 13 14 This matter comes before the Court on its March 18, 2026 order requiring the Romingers 15 to show cause within 14 days why the Court should not dismiss their appeal for failure to prosecute. 16 Dkt. No. 17. For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses this matter. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 On March 18, 2026, the Court issued an order granting Appellee’s Motion for Order to 19 Show Cause Why Appeal Should Not be Dismissed for Lack of Prosecution, Dkt. No. 14, finding 20 that the Romingers had not paid for the transcript as required and had thus failed to perfect their 21 bankruptcy appeal, Dkt. No. 17 at 2. The Court informed the Romingers that they could “show 22 adequate cause by taking all necessary steps to perfect this appeal . . . and filing proof with this 23 Court that they have done so.” Id. (citing Dkt. No. 13 at 1). The Court informed the Romingers 24 that “[a]n appellant’s failure to take any step other than timely filing a notice of appeal does not 1 affect the appeal’s validity, but is ground . . . for the district court . . . to act as it considers 2 appropriate, including dismissing the appeal.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8003(a)(2)). 3 The Romingers have not responded to the order to show cause or filed anything with the 4 Court since that order was issued. Nor is there any indication that they have paid for the transcript 5 as required to perfect their appeal. The docket in their bankruptcy case is similarly devoid of any 6 indication that they have perfected this appeal. See In re Rominger, No. 24-11790-CMA (Bankr. 7 W.D. Wash.) (last visited Apr. 6, 2026). 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 A. Legal Standard 10 “It is within the inherent power of the court to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of 11 prosecution.” Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Hells Canyon Pres. 12 Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[C]ourts may dismiss under Rule 13 41(b) sua sponte . . . ‘for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil 14 procedure or court’s orders.’” (quoting Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003))). 15 Before doing so, courts must consider five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious 16 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 17 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 18 availability of less drastic alternatives.” Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 890 19 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). 20 B. Dismissal is Warranted Here 21 The Court analyzes the five Applied Underwriters factors, 913 F.3d at 890, and determines 22 that dismissal is appropriate. First, the expeditious resolution of litigation “always favors 23 dismissal.” Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). That is true here, 24 where the Romingers have allowed their appeal to languish since October 2025 without perfecting 1 it. Dkt. Nos. 1, 17. The Court finds that this delay has reached the point of “interfer[ing] 2 with . . . the public interest.” Ash, 739 F.2d at 496. 3 Second, the Court’s need to manage its docket is significant, especially given the 4 significant volume of time-sensitive habeas petitions the Court is handling at present. See, e.g., 5 Parada v. Warden, No. 2:26-CV-00947-TMC, 2026 WL 787670, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 20, 6 2026) (“This District is handling an unprecedented volume of immigration habeas cases, all of 7 which, by their very nature, concern petitioners who allege they are unlawfully in custody.”). The 8 Court warned the Romingers that dismissal would follow if they failed to perfect their appeal, Dkt. 9 No. 17 at 2, but they have not heeded that warning. “[T]he Court’s time is better spent on other 10 matters than needlessly consumed managing a case with a recalcitrant litigant.” Pacheco v. Selma 11 Unified Sch. Dist., No. 1:25-CV-00654-JLT-SAB, 2025 WL 1798378, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 12 2025), report and recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 2144721 (E.D. Cal. July 29, 2025). Indeed, 13 “trial courts do not have time to waste on multiple failures by aspiring litigants to follow the rules 14 and requirements of our courts.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 644 (9th Cir. 2002) (Trott, 15 J., concurring in affirmance of district court’s involuntary dismissal). 16 Third, although the Appellee has not shown prejudice, the Court “need not find that 17 Appellee suffered actual prejudice to justify dismissal.” See In re Hernandez, No. 25-cv-2164- 18 RSH-MMP, 2025 WL 3014551, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2025) (dismissing bankruptcy appeal for 19 failure to perfect the appeal or show cause for that failure). “The failure to prosecute diligently is 20 sufficient by itself to justify a dismissal, even in the absence of a showing of actual prejudice to 21 the [opposing party] from the failure.” Id. (quoting Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 22 1447, 1452–53 (9th Cir. 1994)). This is because “the law presumes injury for unreasonable delay.” 23 Moneymaker, 31 F.3d at 1452. 24 1 Fourth, the Court acknowledges that public policy favors disposition on the merits. See 2 Applied Underwriters, 913 F.3d at 890. However, a disposition on the merits cannot occur without 3 the Romingers perfecting their appeal and pursuing this case. 4 Finally, the Court considers whether less drastic alternatives are appropriate. It does not 5 appear that any lesser sanction would be effective when the Romingers have stopped litigating this 6 matter. They did not respond to the Appellee’s motion for an order to show cause, and they have 7 not complied with, or even responded to, the Court’s order to show cause. Nor have they perfected 8 their appeal. Dismissal is therefore the appropriate remedy. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8003(a)(2); Fed. 9 R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962); In re Gelso Invs. V, LLC, 10 127 F. App'x 916, 917 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirming dismissal of bankruptcy appeal for failure to 11 prosecute where the appellant failed to file a statement of issues and designation of record despite 12 multiple opportunities to do so). 13 III. CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, the Courts DISMISSES this case. The Clerk is directed to close 15 the case and transmit a copy of this Order to the Bankruptcy Court. 16 Dated this 6th day of April, 2026. 17 A 18 Lauren King United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24