Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01593/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01593-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Jared Adam Helmkay, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joe Arpaio, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-1593 PHX-ROS (LOA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter arises on the Court’s review of the file. Plaintiff commenced this action on

May 26, 2005 (document # 1) On June 14, 2005, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed

in forma pauperis and ordered service on defendant Arpaio (document # 4). The Court’s June

14, 2005 order directed Plaintiff to "complete and return service packets to the Clerk of Court

within 20 days of the file date of this Order." (Id.) Accordingly, the service packet was due on

or before July 5, 2005. A service packet was sent to Plaintiff on June 14, 2005. (June 14, 2005

docket entry in 2:05CV1593 PHX-ROS (LOA)). Plaintiff, however, did not return a completed

service packet to the Court in violation of the Court's order. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that the Court may dismiss an action for

failure to comply with court orders or for failure to prosecute. In view of Plaintiff’s failure to

comply with Court orders and his failure to prosecute his claims, on September 1, 2005, the

Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause on or before October 1, 2005 why this matter should not

be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court orders.

(document # 5)

Case 2:05-cv-01593-ROS Document 6 Filed 10/20/05 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

To date, Plaintiff has neither responded to the Court's show cause order nor taken any

other action in this case. Plaintiff has not offered any explanation for his disregard of Court

orders and his failure to prosecute his claims. Plaintiff's status as an inmate litigating this case

pro se does not excuse his failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this

Court's orders. See, King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (pro se litigants held to

same procedural rules as litigants represented by counsel); Swimmer v. IRS, 811 F.2d 1343,

1344 (9th Cir.1987) ("Ignorance of court rules does not constitute excusable neglect, even if the

litigant appears pro se.")

In accordance with the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED this matter be DISMISSED without prejudice for

failure to comply with Court orders and for failure to prosecute pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 41(b).

DATED this 20th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01593-ROS Document 6 Filed 10/20/05 Page 2 of 2