Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01870/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01870-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ernesto Alonso Flores-Munoz, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

Joe Arpaio, 

Defendant. ______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1870 PHX JAT (JM)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and the Local Rules of Practice of the

United States District Court for the District of Arizona, this case was referred to the

Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation. For the

reasons explained below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after

independent review of the record, dismiss the Complaint [Docket No. 1] with prejudice due

to the Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action. 

Plaintiff filed pro se the above-titled civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

on June 21, 2005, complaining about the conditions at the Lower Buckeye Jail in Phoenix,

Arizona. By Order dated November 7, 2005, the Clerk of Court was ordered to send a

service packet to the Plaintiff [Docket No. 3]. The service packet was returned and the

Defendant executed a waiver of service on December 27, 2005 [Docket No. 5]. On January

18, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address [Docket No. 6]. Then, on February

14, 2006, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 8]. The Court thereafter issued

an order directing Plaintiff to respond to the Motion to Dismiss by March 21, 2006 [Docket

No. 9]. As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not responded to the Motion to Dismiss. 

Case 2:05-cv-01870-JAT-JR Document 10 Filed 04/03/06 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

In Judge Teilborg's order dated November 7, 2005, Plaintiff was warned that the

failure to comply with any order issued in this matter may result in the dismissal of the action

for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Moreover, in Magistrate Judge Marshall's order dated February 23, 2006, Plaintiff was

specifically directed to respond to the Motion to Dismiss by March 21, 2006 and warned that

his failure to do so may be deemed consent to the granting of the motion. As the Plaintiff has

failed timely to respond to the Motion to Dismiss, he has failed to pursue the prosecution of

his case and he is in violation of Judge Teilborg and Magistrate Judge Marshall's orders. As

such, dismissal of this action with prejudice is appropriate. Owens v. Kaiser Foundation

Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 855, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal for failure to prosecute acts

as an adjudication on the merits).

Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court,

after its independent review, issue an Order dismissing this matter with prejudice. 

This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 

However, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of service of a copy of this

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District Court. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to the objections.

If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV 05-1870-PHXJAT. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate

Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues.

See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

DATED this 3rd day of April, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01870-JAT-JR Document 10 Filed 04/03/06 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

Case 2:05-cv-01870-JAT-JR Document 10 Filed 04/03/06 Page 3 of 3