Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01712/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01712-0/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

JACK GRAY, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIV 05-01712 PHX MHM MEA

)

JOSEPH ARPAIO, et al., ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

) 

 Defendants. )

_______________________________)

Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 7, 2005. On

August 11, 2005, the Court ordered Plaintiff to complete and

return a service packet for Defendants to the Court by August

31, 2005. That order warned Plaintiff that his failure to

timely comply with the provisions of the order would result in

the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 4(b), Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Plaintiff was warned that his failure to acquire a

waiver of service from Defendants or to complete service of

process on Defendants within 60 days of the date the service

order was issued, by October 10, 2005, would result in the

dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 4(m), Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, and Rule 16.2(b)(2)(B), of the United States

District Court for the District of Arizona Local Rules of Civil

Procedure. The civil docket in this matter indicates that

Case 2:05-cv-01712-MHM Document 8 Filed 11/22/05 Page 1 of 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

-2-

Plaintiff has failed to acquire a waiver of service from

Defendants or to complete service of process on Defendants.

Additionally, it appears from the civil docket in this

matter that Plaintiff has been released from custody, and that

Plaintiff has not informed the Court of Plaintiff’s current

address. Plaintiff was warned in the August 11, 2005, order

that his failure to notify the Court of a change in address

could result in dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule

41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On October 11, 2005, the Court gave Plaintiff until

November 18, 2005, to show cause why this case should not be

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s

order of August 11, 2005, and Plaintiff’s failure to effect

service of process on Defendant as required by the Court’s order

of August 11, 2005, and Rule 4, Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Plaintiff has failed to show cause for his failure to

abide by the Court’s orders and to effect service of process on

Defendant. 

THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this case be

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to serve the Defendant in this

matter and for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s

order of August 11, 2005.

DATED this 21st day of November, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01712-MHM Document 8 Filed 11/22/05 Page 2 of 2