Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02534/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02534-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Marco Antonio Jimenez, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

City of Phoenix, 

Defendant.

No. CV-14-2534-PHX-DKD

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 On November 21, 2014, the Court entered an Order which directed the Plaintiff to 

file an amended complaint and further advising that he address the specific deficiencies 

which the Court had identified in that Order. Since November 21, 2014, Plaintiff has 

filed two documents neither of which complies with that Order. First, Plaintiff filed on 

December 2, 2014, a document with the title “Order by Plaintiff of Duty to Discovery 

Rule 26.” This document appears to contain prayers for relief and a request for a copy of 

a transcript for a November 22, 1999 court proceeding. The second document has the 

title “RULES TO SHOW GOOD CAUSE.” It appears to be 29 and a quarter pages of a 

reprinting of portions of the United States Code and a reference, on its last page, to a 

statement in court on November 22, 1999, in a case described as “CV-1945-PHX-EHC.” 

Neither filing complies with the Court’s Order of November 21, 2014, which required the 

filing of an amended complaint and informed Plaintiff that he would need to demonstrate 

Case 2:14-cv-02534-DKD Document 9 Filed 12/12/14 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 

why a claim for employment discrimination that occurred more than 14 years ago is not 

barred by the statute of limitations. 

 In the Court’s November 21, 2014 Order, the Court warned Plaintiff that his 

failure to file an amended complaint to show cause why his complaint should not be 

dismissed would likely result in the dismissal of his new complaint. Plaintiff’s filings 

have not demonstrated such good cause and thus this Court is required under the laws of 

the United States to recommend to the Presiding District Judge of the Phoenix Division 

that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed. 1

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this matter be dismissed for failure to comply with 

the Court’s November 21, 2014 Order and because all of Plaintiff’s filings in this case 

show that Plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

 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. 

The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 

the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure 

timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may 

result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without 

further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will 

be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an 

 

1

 This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Presiding Phoenix Division 

District Judge in light of the absence of consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. 

Case 2:14-cv-02534-DKD Document 9 Filed 12/12/14 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 

order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 Dated this 12th day of December, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-02534-DKD Document 9 Filed 12/12/14 Page 3 of 3