Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03263/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03263-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Hood, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

Joe Arpaio, 

Defendant. ______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3263 PHX SMM (JM)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and the Local Rules of Practice of the

United States District Court for the District of Arizona, this case was referred to the

Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation. For the

reasons explained below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after

independent review of the record, dismiss the Complaint [Docket No. 1] with prejudice due

to the Plaintiff's failure to file a change of address and to prosecute this action. 

Plaintiff filed pro se the above-titled civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

on October 17, 2005, complaining about the conditions at the Durango Jail in Phoenix,

Arizona. By Order dated January 31, 2006, the Clerk of Court was ordered to send a service

packet to the Plaintiff [Docket No. 4]. In the Order, Plaintiff was directed to return the

service packet by and was also warned that if he did not inform the Court of any address

change his case would be subject to dismissal. On February 6, 2006, the Order and service

packet were returned as undeliverable because Plaintiff was no longer in custody [Docket

No. 5]. As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not informed the Court of his current

address. Plaintiff has failed to pursue the prosecution of his case and he is in violation of

Case 2:05-cv-03263-SMM-JR Document 6 Filed 04/04/06 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

Judge McNamee's order. Therefore, dismissal of this action with prejudice is appropriate.

Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 855, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2001)

(dismissal for failure to prosecute acts as an adjudication on the merits).

Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court,

after its independent review, issue an Order dismissing this matter with prejudice. 

This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 

However, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of service of a copy of this

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District Court. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to the objections.

If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV 05-3263-PHXSMM. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the

Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of

the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

DATED this 4th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03263-SMM-JR Document 6 Filed 04/04/06 Page 2 of 2