Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01773/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01773-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

The motion is brought by defendants Universal Technical Institute, McWaters, Riggs,

Cordova, Romano, Walters, Gonzalez, Candeleria, Baker, Mourad, and Bochenski. They

allege that they are the only defendants who have appeared in this action to date.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tami E. Henry, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Universal Technical Institute; Kimberly

McWaters; Mike White; Adrian Cordova;

Mike Romano; Ken Golaszewski; Maria

Walters; Harvey Davis; Heather Gonzales;

Bernie Candeleria; Markia Baker; Karen

Mourad; Kathy Bochenski; Tom Riggs;

Karen McWaters,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-01773-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 65), plaintiff’s response

(doc. 66), and defendants’ reply (doc. 67).1

 Plaintiff filed this action in September 2011

alleging discrimination, retaliation, and conspiracies arising from plaintiff's studies at

Universal Technical Institute.

In an effort to clear up confusion on the docket as to which of plaintiff’s multiple

filings was the operative pleading, on December 28, 2011 we granted plaintiff's second

motion to amend his complaint (doc. 51). We instructed plaintiff to comply with LRCiv

Case 2:11-cv-01773-FJM Document 68 Filed 03/09/12 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

The proposed amended complaint is attached to plaintiff’s motion to amend (doc. 47,

ex. 1).

- 2 -

15.1, and ordered that defendants answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint

within ten days of being served.

Defendants now move to dismiss this action in its entirety. They argue that plaintiff

failed to comply with our December 28, 2011 order because he neither filed nor served his

amended complaint within fourteen days. Plaintiff acknowledges his failure to comply with

LRCiv 15.1, but asks for an additional chance. Our order reminded plaintiff that regardless

of his pro se status, he is bound to follow all federal and local rules of civil procedure. See

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff has not done so, which continues

to cause both confusion and delay in these proceedings. 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 65). This

dismissal is without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of this

order to file and serve his amended complaint on all parties in compliance with LRCiv 15.1.2

Otherwise the Clerk shall enter judgment of dismissal with prejudice.

DATED this 8th day of March, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01773-FJM Document 68 Filed 03/09/12 Page 2 of 2