Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02736/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02736-3/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

TERMPSREF

WO TCK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ernie Pete Ortega, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2736-PHX-MHM (JCG)

ORDER

Plaintiff Ernie Pete Ortega, who is confined in the Maricopa County Jail in Phoenix,

filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order of the Court

filed on October 5, 2006 (Doc. #147), the Amended Complaint was dismissed with leave to

amend. On October 26, 2006, Plaintiff submitted a Third Amended Complaint (Doc. #151),

which was dismissed with leave to amend (Doc. #156). On March 5, 2007, Plaintiff filed a

Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. #160). The Fourth Amended Complaint will be dismissed

and the Clerk of the Court will be directed to enter judgment.

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against

a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised

claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the

Case 2:05-cv-02736-MHM--JCG Document 166 Filed 05/23/07 Page 1 of 5
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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint

before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000)

(en banc).

The Court should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This type

of advice “would undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v.

Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to decide

whether the court was required to inform a litigant of deficiencies). Plaintiff’s Complaint

will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend because the Complaint may

possibly be saved by amendment.

II. Failure to Comply With Court's Previous Orders

Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., provides that a court may dismiss Plaintiff’s action, or part

thereof, for “failure ... to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court.”

Unless otherwise specified, the dismissal acts as an adjudication on the merits. Rule 41(b),

Fed.R.Civ.P. 

District courts have inherent power to control their dockets and may impose sanctions,

including dismissal, in the exercise of that discretion. Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v.

Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.,

501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). The

Ninth Circuit allows imposition of dismissal under Rule 41(b) only after the district court has

weighed 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. Thompson v. Housing Authority, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 829 (1986). Dismissal under Rule 41(b) will not be disturbed

on appeal unless there is a “definite and firm conviction” that the district court committed

clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132,

1136 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Case 2:05-cv-02736-MHM--JCG Document 166 Filed 05/23/07 Page 2 of 5
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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

Here, the Thompson factors weigh in favor of dismissal. First, Plaintiff has had more

than ample opportunity to bring this case to a disposition on the merits. Plaintiff was granted

four opportunities to amend his Complaint. In his Fourth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has

again failed to comply with the Court's orders. In the Court's order dismissing the third

amended complaint with leave to amend (Doc. #156), Plaintiff was advised that Rule 3.4(a)

of the Local Rules of Practice, requires that all complaints by incarcerated persons shall be

signed and legibly written or typewritten on forms approved by the Court and in accordance

with the instructions provided with the forms (emphasis added). Plaintiff was also advised

that Rule 7.1(b) requires that all pleadings shall be in a fixed-pitch type size no smaller than

(10) pitch or in a proportional font size no smaller than 13 point. 

Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint is again not in compliance with the Local Rules

of Practice. The font size is so small that the Court is unable to decipher most of Plaintiff's

claims. In its present form, Defendants would be unable to answer the Complaint in its

entirety. 

Additionally, if Plaintiff had written his Complaint in compliance with the proper linespacing and font size, his Fourth Amended Complaint would exceed the 15 page limitation

for filing a complaint, as required by the Local Rules of Practice and the directions set forth

on the court-approved form. Plaintiff was previously advised of these rules and again failed

to comply with the Court's order.

Moreover, the Court is again unable to determine the precise number and nature of

Plaintiff’s claims in relation to each of the named Defendants. Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure states that “[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct.” 

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint fails to provide the required “short and plain

statement of the claim.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). It is not the responsibility of the Court to review

a lengthy narrative, and attachments to the Complaint and attempt to determine the number

and nature of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s statement of his claims is a narrative of events,

Case 2:05-cv-02736-MHM--JCG Document 166 Filed 05/23/07 Page 3 of 5
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

TERMPSREF - 4 -

which does not appear to differentiate between factual allegations and alleged constitutional

violations. A complaint having the factual elements of a cause of action present but scattered

throughout the Complaint and not organized into a “short and plain statement of the claim”

may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); McHenry v. Renne, 84

F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996).

Second, the Court’s need to manage its docket is best served by dismissal of this

action. This case has been pending for over one and one-half years and Plaintiff has been

provided with four opportunities to cure the deficiencies of his Complaint. He has failed to

do so. When cases such as this one drag on without resolution, it is only logical that the

Court’s docket becomes unmanageable. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th

Cir.) (public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and court’s need to manage its

docket generally supports court’s decision to dismiss), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992). 

Third, there does come a time when the Court must consider the rights and

entitlements of Defendants to finality, fairness, due process of law and the prompt resolution

of litigation. That time has come in this litigation. 

Moreover, Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that service of

the summons and complaint be made on the defendant(s) within 120 days after the filing of

the complaint. Under Local Rule 2.12(b)(3)(B)(i) of the Rules of Practice of the United

States District Court for the District of Arizona, the deadline to effect service of process in

prisoner cases is extended to the “maximum date to effect service pursuant to Rule 4 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or sixty (60) days from filing of service order, whichever

is later.” If service is not made upon a defendant within these time frames, the Court, “upon

motion or on its own initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without

prejudice as to that defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4(m). This case is well beyond the 120 day time frame of the filing of the

complaint due to the numerous extensions granted to Plaintiff.

Case 2:05-cv-02736-MHM--JCG Document 166 Filed 05/23/07 Page 4 of 5
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

TERMPSREF - 5 -

The fourth factor, the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, will

rarely, if ever, support dismissal. However, this case has been pending for over one and onehalf years and Plaintiff has been provided with numerous opportunities to correct the

deficiencies. Plaintiff was clearly on notice of the Court's policy requiring compliance with

its orders and with the Local Rules. Plaintiff has had more than ample opportunity to bring

this case to a disposition on the merits and has failed to do so. 

Finally, the fifth dismissal factor, the availability of less drastic sanctions, weighs in

favor of dismissal. The Court “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before

finally dismissing a case.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986).

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has held that warning the plaintiff of the possibility of dismissal

before actually ordering dismissal meets this requirement. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262

(concluding that warning of dismissal is sufficient to show that court considered less drastic

alternatives); Malone, 833 F.2d at 132. The Court explicitly warned Plaintiff that he faced

dismissal of his case if he failed to comply with Court orders.

In sum, considering each of the above five factors, the Court finds that dismissal for

failure to comply with Court orders is warranted. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court will

be directed to dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 41 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS ORDERED: That the Clerk of the Court will be directed to dismiss this action

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and enter judgment

accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That all pending motions are denied as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the Clerk of Court must make an entry on the

docket stating that the dismissal counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DATED this 22nd day of May, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02736-MHM--JCG Document 166 Filed 05/23/07 Page 5 of 5