Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00032/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00032-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Charles David Clegg, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-032-PHX-SRB (GEE)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On January 4, 2006, the plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

claiming his civil rights were being violated by his conditions of confinement. On January

20, 2006, this court screened the complaint and ordered commencement of service. 

In that screening order, the court specifically warned the plaintiff he must complete

service within 60 days of the filing of the order or within the 120-day time limit allowed by

FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m), whichever is later. See LRCiv. 16.2(b)(2)(B)(i). The plaintiff was

explicitly warned failure to do so could result in dismissal of the action. The court further

warned the plaintiff he must immediately advise the court of any change in his address or the

action could be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

That same day, the court sent a service packet to the plaintiff for processing. The

plaintiff, however, did not return the completed packet. On May 10, 2006, the court issued

Case 2:06-cv-00032-SRB-GEE Document 9 Filed 06/12/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

the plaintiff an order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed, but the order was

returned as undeliverable and marked “Released 2/2/06.”

The time limits for service have passed, and service has not been completed. The

plaintiff has apparently changed his address without advising the court.

Recommendation

 The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court, after its independent review of

the record, enter an order 

DISMISSING this action for failure to prosecute.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), any party may serve and file written objections within

10 days of being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. If objections are

not timely filed, the party’s right to de novo review may be waived. See United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this report and recommendation to all parties.

DATED this 12th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00032-SRB-GEE Document 9 Filed 06/12/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Case 2:06-cv-00032-SRB-GEE Document 9 Filed 06/12/06 Page 3 of 3