Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02098/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02098-0/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

MAXIMO MOLINA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 05-02098 PHX DGC (MEA)

) 

SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

Defendant. ) 

____________________________ )

Plaintiff, while an inmate at the Maricopa County

Durango jail in Phoenix, Arizona, filed a pro se complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 15, 2005. On October 5,

2005, the Court ordered Plaintiff to complete and return a

service packet for Defendant to the Court by October 25, 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 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. 

Plaintiff was warned that his failure to acquire a

waiver of service from Defendant or to complete service of

process on Defendant within 60 days of the date that the service

order was issued, i.e., by December 5, 2005, would result in the

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

Case 2:05-cv-02098-DGC Document 9 Filed 01/09/06 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-

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

Plaintiff has failed to acquire a waiver of service from

Defendant or to complete service of process on Defendant.

On December 5, 2005, the Court allowed Plaintiff until

January 6, 2006, to show cause why this case should not be

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to effect service of process

on Defendant as required by the Court’s order of October 5,

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 October 5, 2005, and Rule 4, Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

DATED this 9th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02098-DGC Document 9 Filed 01/09/06 Page 2 of 2