Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00503/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00503-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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 

Scott P Wilson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Alliant Techsystems, Inc., 

Defendant.

No. cv-11-503-TUC-FRZ (CRP)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 Two issues are before the Court. First, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss 

requesting the Court dismiss the case with prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 

court orders and respond to discovery requests. (Doc. 32). Second, the Magistrate Judge 

ordered Plaintiff complete the financial affidavit attached to the Court’s order dated 

December 10, 2012. (Doc. 36). The Magistrate Judge recommends granting the motion to 

dismiss and dismissing Plaintiff’s case with prejudice. Plaintiff continues to not comply 

with court orders and not respond to discovery requests. 

 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the Court may dismiss a case as 

a remedy for failure to obey scheduling or discovery orders. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f), 37(b). 

The Court may also dismiss a case, as Plaintiff has been warned, for failure to comply 

with Court rules and orders. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 

(9th Cir.1992). The Court must consider the following factors when determining whether 

to dismiss an action: (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 defendants; (4) the public 

policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 

Case 4:11-cv-00503-FRZ Document 41 Filed 01/11/13 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 

alternatives.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-1261. 

 Plaintiff’s failure to follow court rules and orders and his failure to respond to 

Defendant’s discovery requests are cataloged in the Order to Show Cause. (See Doc. 30). 

After the show cause hearing, the Magistrate Judge permitted the case to continue 

because Plaintiff informed the Court that health issues had prevented him from 

complying with the rules and that those health issues were now resolved. (See Doc. 36). 

Subsequent to that order, Plaintiff has continued to fail to follow court orders and respond 

to discovery requests. The Magistrate Judge highlights three examples. First, Plaintiff 

was warned that he must file a response to the motion to dismiss on or before December 

19, 2012. (Doc. 33). Plaintiff did not file a response until December 26, 2012. (Doc. 39). 

Second, Plaintiff was required to provide certain discovery to Defendant on or before 

December 21, 2012. (Doc. 36, pp. 1-2). In its reply to the motion to dismiss, Defendant 

informed the Court that it has not received that discovery. (Doc. 40, p. 2). Third, the 

Court ordered Plaintiff to complete a financial affidavit on or before January 4, 2013. 

(Doc. 36, p. 2). To date, Plaintiff has not completed and filed that affidavit. 

 In considering the five factors for dismissal, Plaintiff has continually slowed the 

progress of this case to the disadvantage of expeditious resolution and management of the 

Court’s docket. Further, Plaintiff’s behavior has caused Defendant to incur additional 

costs in its efforts to obtain discovery. Defendant continues to be prejudiced by Plaintiff’s 

behavior. For instance, included in the outstanding discovery are HIPPA compliant 

medical release forms that Defendant must receive before it can do any discovery into 

Plaintiff’s alleged disabilities. Defendant cannot litigate this case without being provided 

the facts. While resolution on the merits is preferred, the Court cannot resolve a case that 

Plaintiff refuses to litigate. Further, Plaintiff has been warned multiple times and given 

second chances. Less drastic alternatives have not worked. 

 Finally, the Magistrate Judge notes that Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis

having averred to the Court that he is living on $700/month. (Doc. 2). While discussing 

Case 4:11-cv-00503-FRZ Document 41 Filed 01/11/13 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 

discovery issues during the hearing on December 4, 2012, the Magistrate Judge was 

made aware of a 2011 tax return filed by Plaintiff in which he declared more than 

$142,000 in income. In its reply to the motion to dismiss, Defendant offered Plaintiff’s 

tax return as an exhibit. (Doc. 40-1). The Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to submit 

further information on his financial status by completing the financial affidavit that the 

Magistrate Judge attached to the order. Plaintiff had until January 4, 2013 to complete 

that affidavit and as noted above, Plaintiff failed to complete the affidavit. The court 

“shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the allegation of poverty is 

untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). 

Recommendation 

 The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court grant Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss and dismiss this case with prejudice. (Doc. 32). Plaintiff has continuously failed 

to follow court orders and rules and to comply with discovery. Further, Plaintiff’s failure 

to complete the court-ordered financial affidavit while proceeding in forma pauperis

warrants dismissal of this case as well. 

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

72(b)(2), the parties have fourteen days to serve and file written objections to the report 

and recommendation as provided by the rules of court. Responses to objections are due 

fourteen days after being served with a copy of the objections. No replies will be 

permitted without leave of the District Court. All objections should reference the case as 

cv-11-503-FRZ. 

 Dated this 11th day of January, 2013. 

Case 4:11-cv-00503-FRZ Document 41 Filed 01/11/13 Page 3 of 3