Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02373/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02373-2/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

ROSARIO A. FIORANI, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

ALBERT LOWRY; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-2373-PHX-GMS

ORDER

On December 29, 2008 Plaintiff Rosario A. Fiorani Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed a pro se

complaint against several Defendants in which he alleges violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–42,

28 U.S.C. § 1343, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. # 1.) Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants

conspired to violate his civil and constitutional rights when they allegedly falsely imprisoned,

threatened, and intimidated Plaintiff. (See id.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants’ conduct

forced him to write a fraudulent letter in which he admitted guilt to some unspecified offense.

(See id.)

On January 22, 2010, Defendant Seth Berenzweig moved to be dismissed from this

action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and12(b)(6). (Dkt. # 22–23.)

First, Defendant brings a 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Dkt.

# 22.) Defendant also moves to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on the basis of res judicata

and due to Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. In addition,

Defendant filed a Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. # 39) against Plaintiff to discourage his

Case 2:08-cv-02373-GMS Document 40 Filed 02/24/10 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 -

ongoing pattern of suing the defendants for the same alleged acts over and over in courts

across the country. 

As of February 24, 2010, Plaintiff has failed to file a response to these Motions. Local

Rule 7.2(c) provides that “[t]he opposing party shall . . . have fourteen (14) days after service

in a civil or criminal case within which to serve and file a responsive memorandum” to a

defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Local Rule 12.1(b) further provides that a party shall have

thirty days (30) to respond to a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See LRCiv.

12.1(b); 56.1(d). As of February 24, 2010, Plaintiff has not filed a timely responsive

memoranda to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, nor has he sought extensions of time to do

so. Under the Local Rules, if a party “does not serve and file the required answering

memoranda . . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the

motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” LRCiv. 7.2(i); see also

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53– 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that district court did not

abuse its discretion in summarily granting defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to local

rule where pro se plaintiff had time to respond to motion but failed to do so). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file and serve a responsive

memorandum to Defendant’s Motions on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 8, 2010. Should

Plaintiff fail to comply, the Court may deem Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the Motions as a

waiver, and may grant the motions on that basis. 

DATED this 24th day of February, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-02373-GMS Document 40 Filed 02/24/10 Page 2 of 2