Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-03438/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-03438-0/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

Christopher David Ochoa,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-03438-PHX-ROS (ESW)

REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER, SENIOR UNITED STATES 

DISTRICT JUDGE:

This is a civil rights action initiated pro se by Arizona inmate Christopher David 

Ochoa (“Plaintiff”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 23, 2019, the Court issued an 

Order (Doc. 11) requiring Defendant Corizon Health Incorporated to answer the First 

Amended Complaint. The Court also found that the First Amended Complaint stated a 

claim against Defendant Utilization Management Team. (Id. at 8). However, as it is 

generally impossible to effect service on an anonymous defendant, the Court did not 

require service as to Defendant Utilization Management Team. Instead, the Court directed 

Plaintiff to file a “notice of substitution” within 120 days. (Id.). 

On November 19, 2019, the Court accepted Plaintiff’s Notice of Substitution (Doc.

15) and substituted Defendant Aydeji Ladele for Defendant Utilization Management Team. 

(Doc. 17). The Court directed the Clerk of Court to send Plaintiff a blank service packet 

Case 2:18-cv-03438-ROS-ESW Document 30 Filed 03/10/20 Page 1 of 4
- 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

for Defendant Ladele and ordered Plaintiff to return the completed packet to the Clerk of 

Court within twenty-one days. (Id. at 1). The Court’s November 19, 2019 Order also 

required service to be completed as to Defendant Ladele within ninety days. (Id. at 2). 

On January 14, 2020, the Court issued an Order (Doc. 21) noting that although 

Plaintiff returned the service packet for Defendant Ladele, the Clerk of Court returned it to 

Plaintiff as it was improperly completed. The Clerk of Court provided Plaintiff with 

another blank service packet, which Plaintiff failed to return. The Court set January 29, 

2020 as the deadline for Plaintiff to return a properly completed service packet for 

Defendant Ladele. (Id.). The Court advised Plaintiff that the failure to return the service 

packet may result in the dismissal of Defendant Ladele without further notice to Plaintiff. 

(Id.). Upon Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 22), the Court extended the deadline for returning the

service packet to February 20, 2020. (Doc. 23).

As of the date of this Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has not returned a 

properly completed service packet for Defendant Ladele. The service deadline now has 

expired. The Court has advised Plaintiff that the failure to timely return the service packet 

may result in the dismissal of Defendant Ladele. (Doc. 21). In addition, the Court has 

warned Plaintiff that if service is not timely effected, then the action may be dismissed as 

to each Defendant not served. (Doc. 11 at 10). It is not the Court’s role to assist in locating 

Defendant Ladele on Plaintiff’s behalf. See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th 

Cir. 2007) (“A district court lacks the power to act as a party’s lawyer, even for pro se 

litigants.”); Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004) (federal “judges have no obligation to 

act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants”) (italics in original); Barnes v. United States, 

241 F.2d 252 (9th Cir. 1956) (noting pro se litigant does not have rights that a represented 

litigant does not have). 

Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. See Fidelity Philadelphia Trust 

Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). Plaintiff’s failure to 

return the service packet for Defendant Ladele or to complete service of process as to 

Defendant Ladele constitutes a failure to prosecute. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Case 2:18-cv-03438-ROS-ESW Document 30 Filed 03/10/20 Page 2 of 4
- 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

Civil Procedure provides that “[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with 

these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action.” In 

Link v. Wabash Railroad Company, 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962), the Supreme Court 

recognized that a federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte 

for failure to prosecute, even though the language of Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure appears to require a motion from a party. Moreover, in appropriate 

circumstances, the Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute even without 

notice or a hearing. Id. at 633.

In determining whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of the case

as to Defendant Ladele, the Court must weigh the following five factors: “(1) the public’s 

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 

(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 

cases on their merits and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson v. 

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). “The first two of these factors favor the 

imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the fourth factor cuts against a default or 

dismissal sanction. Thus the key factors are prejudice and availability of lesser sanctions.” 

Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990).

Here, the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiff’s 

failure to serve Defendant Ladele prevents this case from proceeding against Defendant

Ladele in the future. The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. The fifth 

factor requires the Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative is available. The 

undersigned finds that only one less drastic sanction is realistically available. Rule 41(b) 

provides that a dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as an adjudication upon the merits 

“[u]nless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies.” The undersigned finds

that dismissing Defendant Ladele with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh. It 

therefore will be recommended that the Court dismiss this action as to Defendant Ladele 

without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Based on the foregoing,

Case 2:18-cv-03438-ROS-ESW Document 30 Filed 03/10/20 Page 3 of 4
- 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

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss Defendant Ladele without 

prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.

This Report and Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) 

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); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

6, 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the 

objections. Failure to file timely 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. Failure to file timely objections to any factual 

determinations of the Magistrate Judge may 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 United States v.Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).

Dated this 9th day of March, 2020.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:18-cv-03438-ROS-ESW Document 30 Filed 03/10/20 Page 4 of 4