Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01676/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01676-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 

Corey Darnell Edwards, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Mesa Municipal Court, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-14-01676-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against Defendants in Maricopa County Superior 

Court, and Defendants removed the case to this Court. Doc. 1 On July 31, 2014, 

Defendants Mesa Municipal Court and the Mesa Police Department (“Mesa Defendants”) 

filed a motion for a more definite statement. Doc. 4. On August 1, 2014, Defendant 

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”) filed a motion to dismiss. Doc. 5. 

 Plaintiff failed to respond to the motions within the time limit set by the rules of 

procedure. See LRCiv 7.2(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). The Court issued an order giving 

Plaintiff until September 29, 2014 to file responses. Doc. 6. The Court warned Plaintiff 

that failure to comply with the order would result in the Court summarily granting the 

motions. Plaintiff filed a response to the Mesa Defendants’ motion for more definite 

statement (Doc. 7), but he did not respond to MCSO’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff did 

file two “motions for judgment.” Docs. 9, 10. 

 The Court entered an order on November 18, 2014, granting the Mesa Defendants’ 

motion for a more definite statement, granting MCSO’s motion to dismiss, denying 

Case 2:14-cv-01676-DGC Document 15 Filed 01/28/15 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 

Plaintiff’s motions for judgment, and ordering Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by 

December 22, 2014. Doc. 12. Plaintiff was warned “that if he fails to file an amended 

complaint by December 22, 2014, the case will be dismissed.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff was also 

given guidance regarding the content of his amended complaint. Id. at 4-6. 

 Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s order. More than six weeks have 

passed since the Court’s deadline, and no amended complaint has been filed. Plaintiff 

has filed another motion, apparently directed to MCSO, “for more Details.” Doc. 14. 

 Before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with an 

order, the Court must weigh five 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. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 

1995). 

 The first three factors favor dismissal. Plaintiff filed this suit more than six 

months ago. Doc. 1. He failed to respond to motions filed by Defendants, was ordered to 

respond by the Court, and yet still failed to respond to one of the motions. Plaintiff was 

ordered to file an amended complaint on or before December 22, 2014, and was warned 

that his case would be dismissed if he failed to do so. Doc. 12. Plaintiff has not 

complied. The Court cannot be in the business of repeatedly having to prompt a litigant 

to follow court orders or the local rules. Because the Court and the public have a strong 

interest in judicial efficiency and the prompt resolution of cases, Plaintiff’s failure to 

prosecute weighs in favor of dismissal. His failure also risks prejudice to Defendants. 

They have been forced to incur expenses and defend themselves in this case, and are 

prejudiced by Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the case in a timely and efficient manner. 

 The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. As for the fifth factor, the 

Court concludes that a dismissal with prejudice would be unduly harsh for this pro se 

litigant. Dismissal without prejudice is an appropriate alternative sanction. Because 

Plaintiff has twice failed to comply with Court orders and has failed to file an amended 

Case 2:14-cv-01676-DGC Document 15 Filed 01/28/15 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 

complaint after being directly warned that his case would be dismissed, the Court will 

dismiss this action without prejudice. 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. This action is dismissed without prejudice. 

 2. The Clerk is directed enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action. 

 Dated this 28th day of January, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-01676-DGC Document 15 Filed 01/28/15 Page 3 of 3