Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01243/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01243-1/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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Corey Demar Shivers, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Phoenix Police Department, et al. , 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1243-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, which was filed on

February 5, 2010. (Doc. 50). On July 6, 2010 Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin issued a Report

and Recommendation (“R & R”) in which he recommended that the Court grant Defendants’

Motion and dismiss this case. (Doc. 73). Plaintiff filed Written Objections to the R & R July

13, 2010 (Dkt. 75);however, because his Objections are without merit, the Court accepts the

R & R as set forth below.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal district courts “‘may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].’” Carrillo-Lozano v. Stolc, 669 F.

Supp.2d 1074, 1076 (D. Ariz. 2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)); see United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While a district judge “must review the

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made,” Schmidt v.

Case 2:09-cv-01243-GMS Document 78 Filed 08/09/10 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 -

Johnstone, 263 F. Supp.2d 1219, 1225 (D. Ariz. 2003)), no such review is necessary when

the parties do not raise specific objections. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (holding

that district courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not

the subject of an objection”); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“[T]he court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.”); CarrilloLozano, 669 F. Supp.2d at 1076 (same). 

DISCUSSION

Upon de novo review of the portions of the R & R to which Petitioner has specifically

objected, the Court finds Judge Irwin’s recommendation to dismiss to be well-taken.

Despite repeated warnings, second chances, and extensions of time, Plaintiff has not

complied with the Judge Irwin’s previous orders. As noted by Judge Irwin, Plaintiff has

repeatedly failed to comply with orders pertaining to a discovery planning conference, and

he has failed to submit a joint discovery plan. (Doc. 73 at 5– 6). Judge Irwin also determined

that Plaintiff demonstrated not only contrariness, but a “lack of candor with the Court and

opposing parties.” Id. at 8. Plaintiffs’ objections to the R & R do not address these concerns.

Instead, Plaintiff attests that he has complied with Defendants’ discovery requests and that

his claim is “very important” to him. These points, however, were not the basis for Judge

Irwin’s R & R. Judge Irwin was clearly concerned with Plaintiff’s repeated refusal to comply

with court orders, warnings, and his lack of candor.

As Judge Irwin pointed out, dismissal of a complaint’s case for failure to prosecute

is a severe sanction. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit has established “a five-part ‘test’ to

determine whether a dismissal sanction is just: ‘(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 party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their

merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g

Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Malone v. USPS, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th

Cir. 1987)); see Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). “[W]here a

court order is violated, factors 1 and 2 support sanctions and 4 cuts against case-dispositive

Case 2:09-cv-01243-GMS Document 78 Filed 08/09/10 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 -

sanctions, so 3 and 5 . . . are decisive.” Valley Eng’rs, 158 F.3d at 1057. Factor 5 “involves

consideration of three subparts: whether the court explicitly discussed alternative sanctions,

whether it tried them, and whether it warned the recalcitrant party about the possibility of

dismissal.” Id.

Applying factor 3, Defendants will be prejudiced by Plaintiff’s continued recalcitrant

behavior and refusal to comply with the Court’s orders. Defendants have taken timely action

to address Plaintiff’s claims and reduce the cost and complexity of this litigation, and

Plaintiff’s refusal to comply and efforts to delay this litigation, if permitted to continue, will

only frustrate those efforts. Applying factor 5, the Court concludes that a dismissal sanction

is appropriate. Judge Irwin has apprised Plaintiff of his behavior and repeatedly warned him

that failure to comply with court orders could result in dismissal of this case. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ACCEPTING Judge Irwin’s R&R (Doc. 73) as

set forth in this Order and GRANTING Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 50). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ other pending motions are DENIED

as moot (See Doc. 68, 70).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to TERMINATE

this action with prejudice. 

DATED this 9th day of August, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01243-GMS Document 78 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 3