Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04089/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04089-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

Armando Ortega Munoz,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-4089-PHX-JAT (LOA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter arises on the Court’s review of the file. Plaintiff commenced this action on

December 13, 2005. (document # 1) On March 3, 2006, the Court ordered service on

Defendants and ordered Plaintiff to file completed service packets by March 23, 2006.

(document # 3)

Although the deadline for returning the completed service packets has passed, Plaintiff

has neither returned completed service packets to the Court nor otherwise effected service on

Defendants. Plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders and failure to accomplish service of

process has halted the progression of this case. 

In view of the foregoing, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause on or before April 21,

2006 why this matter should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Court

orders pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and for failure to serve pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).

Plaintiff has neither responded to the order to show cause nor served Defendant. Rather,

on April 11, 2006, the Court received returned mail addressed to Plaintiff marked

"undeliverable, released." (document # 6) The Court was unable to locate an alternate address

Case 2:05-cv-04089-JAT Document 7 Filed 04/26/06 Page 1 of 4
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 -

for Plaintiff. The Court, therefore, will consider whether to dismiss this matter for failure to

comply with court orders. 

When considering whether to dismiss an action for failure to comply with Court orders,

the court considers: "'(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the

court's needs to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants; (4) the public policy

favoring the disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

sanctions.'" Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988)(quoting Henderson v. Duncan,

779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

The first two dismissal factors support dismissal. Plaintiff's failure to take any

substantive action since filing a Complaint on December 13, 2005 has impeded the resolution

of this case. Malone v. United States Postal Service, 83 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Second,

Plaintiff's failure to offer any explanation for his delay in returning a completed service packet

weighs in favor of dismissal. Third, Plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion as to the

reasonableness of his delay and lack of prejudice to Defendant. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d

1221, 1232 (9th Cir. 1984). Under Rule 41(b), Plaintiff is required to prosecute his case with

reasonable diligence. Moore v. Telfon Communications Corp., 589 F.2d 959, 967 (9th Cir.

1978). There is no evidence that Plaintiff has contacted the Court or Defendant regarding this

case. Plaintiff offers no excuse for his failure to prosecute his claims or for his complete

disregard for court orders. Under these circumstances, the delay is unreasonable and creates a

presumption of prejudice to defendant. Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423. Fourth, the order to

show cause warned Plaintiff that the Court may dismiss the matter if Plaintiff did not show

cause for his failure to comply with court orders. This warning satisfies the Court's obligation

to consider less drastic alternatives to dismissal. Malone, 833 F.2d at 131. Finally, the public

policy in favor of deciding cases on the merits weighs against dismissal. This factor alone,

however, is insufficient to outweigh the other factors which support dismissal. Id.

After review of the foregoing factors, the Court finds that this matter should be dismissed

based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

Accordingly, 

Case 2:05-cv-04089-JAT Document 7 Filed 04/26/06 Page 2 of 4
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 -

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED without prejudice

for failure to comply with court orders. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

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 ten 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(e),

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten 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 order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge=s recommendation. See, Rule

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 25th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-04089-JAT Document 7 Filed 04/26/06 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

Case 2:05-cv-04089-JAT Document 7 Filed 04/26/06 Page 4 of 4