Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02488/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02488-1/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Richard Woods, a single man,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

City of Scottsdale, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 11-02488-PHX-JAT 

ORDER

 Pending before the Court are Defendants Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles 

(“DMV”), Arizona Department of Transportation (“DOT”), Jessie Lee James and Jane 

Doe James’ (collectively “State Defendants”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint (Doc. 34) and Defendants City of Scottsdale, Officer Keith English, Officer 

Janice Semora, as well Jane Doe English and John Doe Semora’s (“Defendants” or “City 

Defendants”) motion to dismiss to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 36). 

Defendants’ motions are unopposed by Plaintiff. The Court grants Defendants’ motions 

for the following reasons. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 On February 19, 2013, the Court entered an order dismissing Plaintiff’s original 

complaint against the State and City Defendants. (Doc. 29). The Court granted Plaintiff 

leave to amend part of the complaint and ordered that Plaintiff shall file an amended 

complaint by March 12, 2013, or the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint 

with prejudice. (Id. at 20). 

Case 2:11-cv-02488-JAT Document 37 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 5
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 -

 On March 14, 2013, two days after the deadline to file an amended complaint 

expired Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint 

arguing that the Court’s order was mailed to the wrong address. (Doc. 30 at 2). Plaintiff 

then gave the Court what he claimed was his correct address. (Id. at 6). On March 27, 

2013, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 31). On April 8, the State Defendants 

filed their pending motion to dismiss (Doc. 34). On June 20, 2013, the Court granted 

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file his amended complaint and deemed the 

amended complaint filed on March 27 to be timely. (Doc. 35). On July 5, 2013, the City 

Defendants filed their pending motion to dismiss (Doc. 36). Plaintiff has failed to respond 

to either motion to dismiss. 

II. ANALYSIS 

 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i) provides that if an “unrepresented party or 

counsel does not serve and file the required answering memoranda . . . such noncompliance may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the Court may 

dispose of the issue summarily.” LRCiv. 7.2(i). Local Rule 7.2(c) requires responsive 

memoranda to be filed within fourteen (14) days after a motion is served. 

 “Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.” 

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Warren, 601 

F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979)). “Although we construe pleadings liberally in their favor, 

[even] pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.” Id. at 54 (citing King v. 

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)). In determining whether to dismiss an action 

for lack of prosecution, the district court is required to weigh several factors: “(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 defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 

disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” 

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 

53. “The first two of these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while 

the fourth cuts against a default or dismissal sanction. Thus the key factors are prejudice 

Case 2:11-cv-02488-JAT Document 37 Filed 09/30/13 Page 2 of 5
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 -

and availability of lesser sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 

1990). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals “review[s] the ‘district court’s dismissal 

pursuant to its local rules for abuse of discretion. Only in rare cases will [the Court of 

Appeals] question the exercise of discretion in connection with the application of local 

rules.’” Sekhon v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, 11-57131, 2013 WL 857617, at *1 

(9th Cir. Mar. 8, 2013) (quoting Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53). 

 In Ghazali, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld summary dismissal of a 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 action for the failure to follow a Nevada district court local rule because the 

pro se plaintiff failed to respond to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 

53. The Nevada rule, like Local Rule 7.2(i), considered the failure to file a response to a 

motion to “constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.” Id. (quoting D. Nev. R. 

140-6). The Court of Appeals reasoned that the dismissal was proper because the pro se

plaintiff was bound by the rules of procedure, and was given notice of the motion and 

ample time to respond. Id. at 54 (citing King, 814 F.2d at 567). 

 Like the plaintiff in Ghazali, Plaintiff in this case has not responded to either the 

State or City Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Further, the Court has already granted 

Plaintiff considerable latitude to file an amended complaint and file an amended complaint 

after the Court’s deadline where the Court made it clear that failure to file an amended 

complaint within the deadline would result in dismissal with prejudice. (Doc. 29 at 20). 

As noted in Wanderer, the first two factors—expeditious resolution and docket 

management—generally favor dismissal. Wanderer, 910 F.2d at 656. They weigh 

especially heavily here because of the Court’s actions and Plaintiff’s total failure to 

respond to Defendants’ dispositive motions. 

 The third factor also favors Defendants. There is risk of prejudice to Defendants 

to deny the motion. Analyzing this factor poses virtually the same considerations as those 

in Ghazali, as that case also involved a litigant in exactly the same procedural position. 

Thus, under Ghazali, this factor also favors dismissal. 

 While the public policy favoring resolution on the merits weighs against dismissal, 

Case 2:11-cv-02488-JAT Document 37 Filed 09/30/13 Page 3 of 5
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 

- 4 -

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir.2002), it is no more compelling here 

than it was in Ghazali. Plaintiff has now repeatedly disregarded the Court’s orders and 

local rules. Accordingly, this factor weighs only slightly against dismissal. 

 The final factor requires the Court to consider the availability of less drastic 

sanctions. Defendants have both moved for the Court to dismiss the Complaint with 

prejudice. While Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, the Court has already granted Plaintiff 

repeated less drastic measures and Plaintiff has failed to prosecute his claims against the 

State and City Defendants. Plaintiff has also been given ample opportunity to respond to 

Defendants’ motions to dismiss or to move for an extension of time to file a response and 

has not done so. Thus, in weighing this last factor, the Court finds that dismissal with 

prejudice is the only acceptable sanction in this case. 

 In sum, the five-factor analysis supports dismissal of this case for failure to 

respond to the motions to dismiss. The Court’s decision to grant the motions in these 

circumstances is further supported by the fact that it is premised upon a local rule that 

expressly permits the Court to summarily grant unopposed motions. Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 

53 (quoting Warren, 601 F.2d at 474 (“Only in rare cases will we question the exercise of 

discretion in connection with the application of local rules.)). Defendants’ motions to 

dismiss will therefore be granted based on Plaintiff’s failure to respond. See LRCiv 7.2(i). 

III. CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 2:11-cv-02488-JAT Document 37 Filed 09/30/13 Page 4 of 5
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 

- 5 -

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Arizona DMV, Arizona DOT, Jessie Lee 

James and Jane Doe James’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc. 34) is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants City of Scottsdale, Officer Keith 

English, Officer Janice Semora, as well Jane Doe English and John Doe Semora’s Motion 

to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc. 36) is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment 

accordingly. 

 Dated this 27th day of September, 2013. 

Case 2:11-cv-02488-JAT Document 37 Filed 09/30/13 Page 5 of 5