Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00368/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00368-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Waters,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Contract Freighters Incorporated, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-20-00368-PHX-DWL

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

In November 2019, pro se Plaintiff John Waters (“Waters”) filed a lawsuit in 

Maricopa County Superior Court against Defendant Contract Freighters Inc. (“CFI”). 

(Doc. 9-1 at 3-7.) In a nutshell, the complaint alleges that Waters was employed by CFI 

as a commercial truck driver, that CFI forced its drivers to engage in “illegal and unsafe” 

driving practices, that Waters complained about these practices, and that CFI retaliated 

against Waters by terminating him and publishing false information about him. (Id.) The 

complaint was served on CFI in January 2020. (Doc. 9 ¶ 2.)

In February 2020, CFI removed this case to federal court. (Doc. 1.) Afterward, the 

Court issued a notice to Waters summarizing the various resources that are available to pro 

se litigants (Doc. 4), a preliminary order (which, among other things, included an express 

warning that “failure to prosecute, to comply with court orders, or to comply with the Local 

and Federal Rules may result in dismissal of all or part of this case, default, imposition of 

sanctions, or summary disposition of matters pending before the Court”) (Doc. 8 at 4), and 

an order requiring the parties “to meet, confer, and develop a Rule 26(f) Joint Case 

Case 2:20-cv-00368-DWL Document 14 Filed 03/30/20 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

Management Report, which must be filed no later than March 27, 2020. It is the 

responsibility of Plaintiff(s) to initiate the Rule 26(f) meeting and preparation of the Joint 

Case Management Report.” (Doc. 11 at 1.)

On March 27, 2020, CFI filed the Rule 26(f) report. (Doc. 12.) The introductory 

paragraph explains that CFI was required to prepare the report unilaterally because Waters 

“never made any effort to contact Defendant’s counsel” and because Waters never 

responded to multiple efforts (via email, U.S. mail, and Federal Express) by CFI’s counsel 

to contact him. (Id. at 1-2.)

Given these failures, it is unclear whether Waters intends to prosecute this case. 

Accordingly, Waters will be ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed 

without prejudice for failure to prosecute. To comply with the show-cause order, Waters 

must—by April 20, 2020—file a response with the Court (1) confirming his present contact 

information (including an address and phone number at which he may be contacted, if 

different from those presently on file with the Court), and (2) explaining his failure to 

respond to CFI counsel’s efforts to contact him, meet and confer under Rule 26(f) on a 

discovery plan, and file a joint report with the Court.

If Waters does not file the required response, the Clerk of Court shall terminate this 

action without further notice. “Several of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide 

authority for courts to dismiss a lawsuit as a sanction when a party fails to” comply with a 

court order requiring the joint development of a Rule 26(f) report. Jones v. Trujillo, 2012 

WL 13081962, *3-4 (D.N.M. 2012). “For example, Rule 16(f) authorizes courts to impose 

sanctions, including dismissal, for a party’s failure to appear at a scheduling conference or 

to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order. . . . Similarly, Rules 37 and 41 also authorize 

courts to dismiss actions. [Rule] 37(b)(2)(A)(v) allows a court to dismiss an action ‘[i]f a 

party . . . fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order [to meet 

and confer] under Rule 26(f),’ [and] Rule 41(b) authorizes dismissal ‘[i]f the plaintiff fails 

to prosecute or comply with [the] rules or a court order.’” Id. 

If Waters does not file a response by April 20, 2020, dismissal without prejudice 

Case 2:20-cv-00368-DWL Document 14 Filed 03/30/20 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

will be warranted under Rule 41(b). Clark v. Morano, 2016 WL 6989755, *2-3 (C.D. Cal. 

2016) (dismissing action without prejudice under Rule 41(b), after plaintiff failed to 

participate in preparation of Rule 26(f) report and failed to respond to subsequent order to 

show cause, and explaining why the Rule 41(b) factors supported this outcome).

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Waters must, by April 20, 2020, file a response to this order 

to show cause that (1) confirms his present contact information (including an address and 

phone number at which he may be contacted, if different from those presently on file with 

the Court), and (2) explains his failure to respond to CFI counsel’s efforts to contact him, 

meet and confer under Rule 26(f) on a discovery plan, and file a joint report with the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Waters does not file the required response by 

April 20, 2020, the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment 

accordingly. 

Dated this 30th day of March, 2020.

Case 2:20-cv-00368-DWL Document 14 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 3