Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02773/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02773-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

1

 "Plaintiff alleges that conditions at the Durango Jail [in Phoenix, Arizona] are

unsanitary, that he lacks sufficient opportunities for outdoor recreation, and that the food is

nutritionally inadequate." Doc. #3 at 2. "Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Joseph

Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriff, is liable because he has 'established a substandard of

daily operations, procedures, policies, standard of care and employee attitudes.'" Id. (quoting

Compl. at 7). 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Timothy John Florez, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2773-PHX-DGC (BPV)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Timothy John Florez's pro se Civil Rights

Complaint by a Prisoner ("Complaint")1

 and United States Magistrate Judge Bernardo P.

Velasco's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), which recommends that the Complaint be

dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Docs. ##1, 6. For the reasons set forth

below, the Court will refer the case back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

I. The R&R and the Objection.

According to the R&R, "Plaintiff fail[ed] to complete service of the Summons and

Complaint on the Defendants within 120 days of the filing date of the complaint or within

Case 2:05-cv-02773-DGC-BPV Document 8 Filed 06/20/06 Page 1 of 4
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 -

60 days of the filing" of an order directing the Clerk of the Court to send Plaintiff a "service

packet," which included the documents necessary to effect service of the Complaint. Doc.

#6 at 2. Magistrate Judge Velasco also found that Plaintiff failed to "acquire a waiver of

service from Defendant[.]" Id. The R&R states that the aforementioned order informed

Plaintiff that the failure to timely complete service of process or to obtain waiver of service

would result in dismissal of his Complaint. Id. 

"In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court

is required to weigh several 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 v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir 1988) (per

curiam) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Magistrate Judge Velasco determined that the first, second, and third factors favored

dismissal, reasoning that "Plaintiff's failure to serve Defendants, or to actively participate in

this case prevents the case from proceeding in the foreseeable future." Doc. #6 at 3. The

fourth factor weighed against dismissal. Id. Finally, Magistrate Judge Velasco considered

dismissal with prejudice to be "unnecessarily harsh" and therefore recommended the "less

drastic alternative" of dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. Id. at 3-4. 

A party may file specific, written objections to an R&R within ten days after being

served with a copy the R&R. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court

must undertake a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which specific objections

are made. See id.; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). 

On April 12, 2006, Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R, stating that he did not

receive the service packet. Doc. #7 at 3. Plaintiff appears to suggest that he did not sign for

Case 2:05-cv-02773-DGC-BPV Document 8 Filed 06/20/06 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

the service packet and that therefore the Court has no confirmation that he received it. Id.

at 2. 

II. Analysis.

The Court's review is limited to the impact of Plaintiff's objection – allegedly not

receiving the service packet – on Magistrate Judge Velasco's application of the Carey factors.

See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149 (noting that district courts are not required to conduct "any

review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection."). 

On February 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed notice of a change in his mailing address in

another action pending before the Court. Florez v. Arpaio, 05-03208-DGC-BPV (Doc. #5).

While Plaintiff did not file a similar notice with the Court in the present case, Plaintiff's

mailing address for this suit was nonetheless changed by the Clerk of Court as of March 2,

2006 due to the February 27, 2006 notice. 

"The docket indicates the Clerk of Court mailed the order and service packet" on

January 30, 2006, prior to Plaintiff's change of address notification. Doc. #3; Doc. #6 at 1.

The materials were not returned to the Court as undeliverable, which suggests that the order

and service packet reached their rightful destination. 

The Court cannot, however, state with certainty that Plaintiff actually received the

order and service packet. While such uncertainty may generally exist where a prisonerplaintiff claims that he or she did not receive court documents, two facts in this particular

case give the Court pause. First, the temporal proximity of the mailing of the order and

service packet and the filing of the notice of change of mailing address is sufficiently close

that Plaintiff's move may have complicated his ability to receive mail. Second,

communication with Plaintiff resumed after the February 27, 2006 notice was filed: Plaintiff

received the R&R at his new address, as evidenced by his objection. See Doc. #7. If

Plaintiff had the same mailing address throughout these proceedings, claimed to have not

received a court document, but corresponded with the court both before and after this

allegedly unaccepted document was mailed, the Court may be less inclined to give credence

to his objection. Here, Plaintiff's failure to comply with the order and service packet is

Case 2:05-cv-02773-DGC-BPV Document 8 Filed 06/20/06 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

consistent with his claim of not receiving court documents at his original mailing address and

his ability to receive documents at his new address. 

In light of these considerations, Plaintiff's transfer from one correctional facility to

another may, at least partially, account for his "failure to serve Defendants, or to actively

participate in this case[.]" Doc. #6 at 3. Accordingly, the Court finds that dismissal without

prejudice is not an appropriate sanction and that a "less drastic sanction" is available. See

Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440. In particular, the Court will direct the Magistrate Judge to order

Plaintiff to complete service of process within a reasonable period of time to be set by the

Magistrate Judge and to notify Plaintiff of the risks of dismissal if he does not comply. Now

that communication with Plaintiff has been reestablished, the Court concludes that such an

order will provide Plaintiff with a reasonable window within which to prosecute his case.

The ends of justice served by granting this opportunity outweigh the countervailing public

or judicial interest in sending this "litigant to the back of the line." Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d

493, 497 (9th Cir. 1984) (upholding dismissal without prejudice where plaintiff was "notified

of the impending dismissal and given an opportunity to preserve his action by explaining the

delay and going forward with the case" but "failed to respond to the notice in any way."). 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The R&R (Doc. #6) is rejected so that United States Magistrate Judge

Bernardo P. Velasco can issue an order as directed herein.

2. The case is referred to Magistrate Judge Velasco for further proceedings. 

DATED this 19th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02773-DGC-BPV Document 8 Filed 06/20/06 Page 4 of 4