Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01442/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01442-0/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

Martiniano Romero, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV-05-1442-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the court is Plaintiff's pro se prisoner civil rights complaint. (Dkt.

#1). The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey for Report and

Recommendation. On October 6, 2005 Magistrate Judge Aspey filed his Report and

Recommendation with this Court. (Dkt. #10). Plaintiff failed to file any objections.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court must review the legal analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court must review the factual analysis in the Report and

Recommendation de novo for those facts to which Objections are filed. "Failure to object

to a magistrate judge's recommendation waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact."

Jones v. Wood, 207 F.3d 557, 562 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2000).

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-01442-MHM Document 11 Filed 11/10/05 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 -

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff filed with the Clerk of the Court on May 17, 2005 a pro se prisoner civil

rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. #1. On June 28, 2005, the Court granted

Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, directed Plaintiff to serve Defendants,

and advised Plaintiff failure to comply with the Court’s orders would result in dismissal

pursuant to Rule 41(b). Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s order requiring

Plaintiff to complete service of process by September 13, 2005. Additionally, Plaintiff failed

to comply with Judge Aspey’s June 28, 2005 order directing Plaintiff to show cause why this

matter should not be dismissed by September 23, 2005.

In his Report and Recommendation, Judge Aspey recommends the Court dismiss

Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to follow the

Court’s orders. 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 Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure appears to require a motion from a party. Moreover, in appropriate

circumstances, the Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute even without

notice or hearing. Id. at 633.

In determining whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of 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 strongly favor dismissal of this case. Since

June 29, 2005, Plaintiff has taken no further action to prosecute his case. The fourth factor,

Case 2:05-cv-01442-MHM Document 11 Filed 11/10/05 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 -

as always, weighs against dismissal. The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether

a less drastic alternative is available. The Court finds that only one less drastic sanction is

realistically available. Rule 41(b) provides that a dismissal for failure to prosecute operates

as an adjudication upon the merits "[u]nless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise

specifies." 

The Complaint and this action will therefore be dismissed without prejudice pursuant

to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Having reviewed the Report and

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Aspey, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's Complaint

should be dismissed without prejudice. The Court hereby incorporates and adopts Magistrate

Judge Aspey’s Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Aspey’s Report

and Recommendation. (Dkt. #10).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint and this action are dismissed

without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure

to prosecute. (Dkt. #1).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 8th day of November, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01442-MHM Document 11 Filed 11/10/05 Page 3 of 3