Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02581/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02581-0/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

Robert J. Behrens,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Janice Lynn Behrens

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2581-PHX-LOA

ORDER

On November 21, 2006, U.S. Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson issued

a Notice of Assignment, OSC and Order (docket # 9) and ordered, among others, that

Plaintiff shall file on or before December 1, 2006, his written election to either consent to

magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a United States district judge.

Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with this orders or other orders may result in the

dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41, FED.R.CIV.P. (Id.

at 3) 

In view of Plaintiff's pro se status, the district court construes his pleadings

liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). On December 1, 2006, Plaintiff filed

a non-responsive, rambling pleading entitled “Response TO ORDER” that wholly fails to

address the consent/election issue. (docket # 11) 

Consistent with a district court’s requirement to screen pro se cases pursuant

to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) wherein a pro se plaintiff has been or may be granted in

Case 2:06-cv-02581-LOA Document 17 Filed 05/23/07 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

1

 Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (docket # 3) is still under

advisement.

- 2 -

forma pauperis status,1 Magistrate Judge Anderson authored and filed a Report and

Recommendation on December 7, 2006, recommending that Plaintiff's Complaint be

dismissed without prejudice as duplicative to the claims in CV-06-2070-PHX-EHC and for

Plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders. (docket # 12) Plaintiff has not filed an

Objection or response to Magistrate Judge Anderson’s Report and Recommendation.

Through an administrative error, Magistrate Judge Anderson’s Report and Recommendation

was not directed to the Phoenix division liaison district judge.

Plaintiff has failed to comply with Magistrate Judge Anderson’s November 21,

2006 Order or filed an Objection to his December 7, 2006 Report and Recommendation. 

Therefore, sanctions are appropriate pursuant to LRCiv 83.1(f)(1), Rules of Practice for the

United States District Court for the District of Arizona, effective December 1, 2006. In view

of Plaintiff’s non-compliance, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Even though the district court construes pro se pleadings liberally, "[p]ro se

litigants must [still] follow the same rules of procedure as other litigants." King v. Atiyeh,

814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with the

procedural rules of the court is within the district court’s discretion. Original Ballet Russe,

Ltd. v. Ballet Theatre, Inc., 133 F.2d 187, 188 (2nd Cir. 1943); Sergio Bautista et al. v. Los

Angeles County, 216 F.3rd 837 (9th Cir. 2000). Moreover, district courts have the inherent

power to control their dockets and in the exercise of that power may impose sanctions

including, where appropriate, dismissal of a case. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260

(9th Cir. 1992). "In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court

order, district courts must weigh five factors: (1) the public interest; (2) the court's need to

manage the docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives." Id.

at 1260-61.

Case 2:06-cv-02581-LOA Document 17 Filed 05/23/07 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 -

 After considering and weighing all five factors to determine if dismissal is

appropriate for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders, the Court concludes

dismissal without prejudice of the Plaintiff’s Complaint is appropriate and just under the

circumstances of this case. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby dismissed without

prejudice.

DATED this 22nd day of May, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02581-LOA Document 17 Filed 05/23/07 Page 3 of 3