Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01861/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01861-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

Sean Patrick Murphy, a single man, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

County of Yavapai, Board of

Supervisors, Gheral Brownlow, Lorna

Street, and Chip Davis, a body politic;

G.C. “Buck” Buchanan, Sheriff of

Yavapai County; and Danell Johnson, a

single man,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-1861-PCT-DGC

ORDER

Pending before the Court is pro se Defendant Danial Johnson’s “motion to respond

on complaint.” Doc. #32. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion.

At the outset of his motion, Defendant Johnson states that he intends to answer the

complaint but needs more information to do so. Id. at 1. Defendant further states that his

first name is Danial, not Dannell, and that he has never assaulted Plaintiff. Id. at 2. In the

last sentence of his motion, Defendant moves the Court to dismiss him from this action.

Id. at 2.

The Court will construe Defendant’s motion as a motion to dismiss pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Bernhardt v. L.A. County, 339

F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally,

including pro se motions as well as comp laint s.”). Because the motion was not so titled,

Case 3:04-cv-01861-DGC Document 53 Filed 11/07/05 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 -

however, the Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to respond to the motion. Plaintiff

shall have until November 18, 2005 t o file a response. Plaintiff is advised that the Court

may deem the failure to file a response a consent to the grant ing of t he motion. See LRCiv

7.2(i); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding t hat the district court did

not err in summarily grant ing the defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to a local rule

where the plaintiff had time t o respond to the motion but failed to do so); see also Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that t he district court did not err in

dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint for failing to comply with a court order). 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until Novembe r 18, 2005 to file a response

to Defendant Danial Johnson’s motion to dismiss (Doc. #32).

DATED this 4th day of November, 2005.

Case 3:04-cv-01861-DGC Document 53 Filed 11/07/05 Page 2 of 2