Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02534/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02534-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Marco Antonio Jimenez, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

City of Phoenix, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-02534-PHX-DKD

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge 

David K. Duncan, recommending that the Court dismiss this case on grounds that 

Plaintiff has failed to comply with his November 21, 2014 Order and that the record 

shows that Plaintiff cannot state a legal claim. (Doc. 9) Plaintiff filed an objection to the 

Report and Recommendation called “Amended Complaint & Objections.” (Doc. 11) The 

Report and Recommendation fully summarizes the facts and procedure of this case: 

 On November 21, 2014, the Court entered an Order which directed 

the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and further advising that he 

address the specific deficiencies which the Court had identified in that 

Order.[1

] Since November 21, 2014, Plaintiff has filed two documents 

 

1

 The allegations in the Complaint were all related to a dismissed 1998 case in 

which Plaintiff alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Doc. 6) The 

Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of that case. (Id.) Magistrate Judge Duncan noted that because “all matters related to Plaintiff’s claims of employment discrimination arising from Plaintiff’s employment with the City which have been determined already, [Plaintiff] may not seek to reopen that case absent extraordinary relief the grounds of which have not been asserted.” (Id.) Magistrate Judge Duncan also noted that any amended Complaint “would likely need to explain why Plaintiff’s claim for employment discrimination occurring more than 14 years ago is not barred by the statutes of 

limitations.” (Id.) 

Case 2:14-cv-02534-DKD Document 12 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

neither of which complies with that Order. First, Plaintiff filed on 

December 2, 2014, a document with the title “Order by Plaintiff of Duty to 

Discovery Rule 26.” This document appears to contain prayers for relief 

and a request for a copy of a transcript for a November 22, 1999 court 

proceeding. The second document has the title “RULES TO SHOW GOOD 

CAUSE.” It appears to be 29 and a quarter pages of a reprinting of portions 

of the United States Code and a reference, on its last page, to a statement in 

court on November 22, 1999, in a case described as “CV-1945-PHX-EHC.” 

Neither filing complies with the Court’s Order of November 21, 2014, 

which required the filing of an amended complaint and informed Plaintiff 

that he would need to demonstrate why a claim for employment 

discrimination that occurred more than 14 years ago is not barred by the 

statute of limitations. 

 In the Court’s November 21, 2014 Order, the Court warned Plaintiff 

that his failure to file an amended complaint to show cause why his 

complaint should not be dismissed would likely result in the dismissal of 

his new complaint. Plaintiff’s filings have not demonstrated such good 

cause and thus this Court is required under the laws of the United States to 

recommend to the Presiding District Judge of the Phoenix Division that 

Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed. 

(Doc. 9) 

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of 

the record in this case and has fully considered Plaintiff’s “Amended Complaint & 

Objections.” This filing consists substantially of a recitation of Arizona criminal statutes 

that in no way can state a legal claim. His objections consist generally of incoherent 

ramblings that inappropriately call into question the impartiality of judges in this district 

and the federal judiciary. Plaintiff makes no attempt to address the deficiencies 

Magistrate Judge Duncan identified in the Complaint and he also has not explained why 

he did not comply with Magistrate Judge Duncan’s instruction for him to file an amended 

Complaint. See Nelson v. Target Corp., No. CV-13-2519-PHX-LOA, 2014 WL 1384604, 

at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 9, 2014) (“While complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less 

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, pro se litigants must 

comply with all procedural and local rules.” (alteration incorporated) (citation omitted)). 

/// 

Case 2:14-cv-02534-DKD Document 12 Filed 01/20/15 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

Because Plaintiff has not identified any legal error in Magistrate Judge Duncan’s 

analysis, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and dismisses this case.2

IT IS ORDERED overruling the objections to the Report and Recommendation 

(Doc. 11). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 

9). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery 

(Doc. 7). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Collect (Doc. 10). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment 

dismissing the case. 

 Dated this 20th day of January, 2015. 

 

2

 After the Report and Recommendation was issued, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to 

Collect.” (Doc. 10) This Motion appears to concern certain money Plaintiff claims he is owed on some unspecified judgment he apparently received in his favor. 

Case 2:14-cv-02534-DKD Document 12 Filed 01/20/15 Page 3 of 3