Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02260/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02260-2/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Robert A. Garcia, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Glendale Police Department, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 11-02260-PHX-JAT 

ORDER

 Pending before the Court is sole remaining Defendant Robert Solomon’s Motion to 

Dismiss pro se Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(b).1

 (Doc. 119). Defendant alleges that, in contravention of the 

Court’s previous Order (Doc. 69), Plaintiff has again2

 refused to confer or communicate 

with Defendant’s counsel to craft and file various joint pretrial materials. (Doc. 119 at 2–

3; see Plaintiff’s January 10, 2010 “Notice of Incommunicada” [sic], Doc. 104 

(proclaiming that Plaintiff—who is incarcerated—will no longer send, sign for, or accept 

mail)). 

 The Court has previously warned Plaintiff that his failure to follow the Court’s 

Orders and participate in his case is grounds for dismissal. (Doc. 17 at 10 (“If Plaintiff 

fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these warnings, the 

Court may dismiss this action without further notice.”); Doc. 65 at 2 (“Plaintiff has 

1

 Rule 41(b) provides that “[i]f 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.” F.R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

2

 (See Doc. 65; Doc. 119 at 2). 

Case 2:11-cv-02260-JAT Document 127 Filed 02/10/14 Page 1 of 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 

- 2 -

disregarded the Court’s order warning him of the consequences of failing to timely 

respond. The Court will give Plaintiff one further opportunity to proceed to trial 

including complying with all requirements of this Court. In particular, Plaintiff must 

comply with a new final pretrial order setting the Final Pretrial Conference that will 

follow.”) (emphasis added)). Consequently, the Court is inclined to grant Defendant’s 

Motion. 

 However, Dismissal for failure to prosecute is a “harsh penalty and is to be 

imposed only in extreme circumstances.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 

(9th Cir. 1986). Before dismissing Plaintiff’s case, the Court must 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.” Id. (citing Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984); Mir v. Fosburg, 

706 F.2d 916, 918 (9th Cir. 1983). Consequently, the Court will permit Plaintiff an 

opportunity to respond to Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff is cautioned that if he fails to 

timely respond pursuant to this Order, the Court may dismiss this action without further 

notice. 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 2:11-cv-02260-JAT Document 127 Filed 02/10/14 Page 2 of 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 

- 3 -

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Final Pretrial Conference, set for February 19, 2014 at 

4:00pm, is vacated to permit Plaintiff time to respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss 

for failure to prosecute (Doc. 119). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall respond to the motion to dismiss 

(Doc. 119) on or before February 28, 2014. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to timely respond to the motion 

to dismiss (Doc. 119), the Court will deem Plaintiff's failure to respond to be Plaintiff’s 

consent to the motion being granted under Local Rule Civil 7.2(i). 

 Dated this 10th day of February, 2014. 

Case 2:11-cv-02260-JAT Document 127 Filed 02/10/14 Page 3 of 3