Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00194/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00194-0/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

Carlos Rutiaga-Romero, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joe Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-194-PHX-SMM (GEE)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On January 13, 2006, the plaintiff, an inmate at the Durango Jail in Phoenix, Arizona,

filed a complaint in this court claiming his civil rights were being violated by his conditions

of confinement. On the same day, this court issued a notice of assignment which, among

other things, notified the plaintiff that he must immediately advise this court of any change

in his address. He was specifically warned failure to do so could result in dismissal of the

action for failure to prosecute. 

On March 31, 2006, this court screened the complaint and ordered commencement

of service. A service packet was sent to the plaintiff, but it was returned marked “return to

sender,” “unable to forward” and “released 2-8-06.” 

Service in a prisoner case must be effected within 60 days of the filing of the service

order or 120 days of the filing of the complaint, whichever is later. LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(i).

These deadlines have passed and service has not been accomplished. 

Case 2:06-cv-00194-SMM-GEE Document 6 Filed 06/05/06 Page 1 of 4
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 -

Recommendation

 The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court, after its independent review of

the record, enter an order 

DISMISSING this action for failure to prosecute.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), any party may serve and file written objections within

10 days of being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. If objections are

not timely filed, the party’s right to de novo review may be waived. See United States v.

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

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this report and recommendation to all parties.

DATED this 5th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00194-SMM-GEE Document 6 Filed 06/05/06 Page 2 of 4
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 2:06-cv-00194-SMM-GEE Document 6 Filed 06/05/06 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

Case 2:06-cv-00194-SMM-GEE Document 6 Filed 06/05/06 Page 4 of 4