Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05416/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05416-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Amador Navarro,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-05416-PHX-DLR (ESW)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS L. RAYES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT JUDGE:

On June 25, 2019, Plaintiff, through the assistance of counsel, filed a Complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to safety risks and cruel and 

unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment (Doc. 1-3 at 4-8). On March 2, 

2020, the Court ordered that Plaintiff show cause no later than March 23, 2020 why the 

case should not be dismissed as to Defendant Triveno and John and Jane Does I-X for 

failure to prosecute and timely serve pursuant to Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure (Doc. 20). Plaintiff timely responded, indicating that Defendant 

Triveno does not exist and may be dismissed without prejudice from the case (Doc. 21 at 

2). Plaintiff did not address the issue of Defendants John and Jane Does I-X or show 

cause why they should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Court’s deadline for 

joining parties, amending pleadings, and filing supplemental pleadings has passed (Doc. 9 

at 2). As of the date of filing this Report and Recommendation, no motion to amend or 

Case 2:19-cv-05416-DLR-ESW Document 22 Filed 04/14/20 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Notice of Substitution has been filed. 

Plaintiffs have the general duty to prosecute their case. See Fidelity Phila. Trust 

Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978) (“It is a well established 

rule that the duty to move a case is on the plaintiff and not on the defendant or the court.”). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that “if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or 

to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action 

or any claim against it.” In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962), 

the Supreme Court recognized that a federal district court has the inherent power to 

dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute, even though the language of Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) appears to require a motion from a party. Moreover, in 

appropriate circumstances, the Court may dismiss a pleading for failure to prosecute even 

without notice or hearing. Link, 370 U.S. at 633.

In determining whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of parties 

in the case, the Court must weigh the following five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk 

of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440 (quoting 

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). “The first two of these factors 

favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the fourth factor cuts against a default 

or dismissal sanction. Thus the key factors are prejudice and availability of lesser 

sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnson, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990).

Here, the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of Defendants Triveno, 

John and Jane Does I-X in this case. Plaintiff’s failure to serve Defendant Triveno and 

name Doe Defendants prevents the case from proceeding as to them in the foreseeable 

future. The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. The fifth factor requires 

the Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative is available. The undersigned finds 

that only one less drastic sanction is realistically available. Rule 41(b) provides that a 

dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as adjudication upon the merits “[u]nless the 

Case 2:19-cv-05416-DLR-ESW Document 22 Filed 04/14/20 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

dismissal order states otherwise.” The Court may dismiss Defendants Triveno, John and 

Jane Does I-X from the case without prejudice.

For the reasons set forth above, 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendant Triveno be dismissed without prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Defendants John and Jane Does I-X be 

dismissed without prejudice. 

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (1) should 

not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. The parties shall have fourteen 

days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific 

written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. 

Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. 

Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 

may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court 

without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 

2003). Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate 

Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of 

fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

Dated this 14th day of April, 2020.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:19-cv-05416-DLR-ESW Document 22 Filed 04/14/20 Page 3 of 3