Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02395/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02395-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

1

 The plaintiff was incarcerated at the time he commenced this §1983

action on October 10, 2006. On August 8, 2007, however, the plaintiff filed a

change of address that indicated that he was no longer incarcerated. The

defendants mailed their notice resetting the plaintiff’s deposition to October 18,

2007, their discovery requests, and their motion for sanctions to the plaintiff at his

new address.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eugene Earl Harwood, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

Sheriff Ralph E. Ogden, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2395-PHX-PGR (DKD)

 

 ORDER

Pending before the Court is the defendants’ Motions [sic] for Sanctions

(doc. #22), filed November 20, 2007, wherein the defendants seek the dismissal

of this civil rights action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d) due to the plaintiff’s two

failures to attend his properly noticed deposition and his failure to respond in any

manner to the defendants’ two sets of interrogatories and their request for

production of documents. The plaintiff has to date failed to respond in any

manner to the defendants’ properly served motion and his time for doing so under

LRCiv 7.2(c) has long since expired.1

 The defendants argue, and the Court

Case 2:06-cv-02395-PGR Document 24 Filed 02/07/08 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

2

 LRCiv 7.2(I) provides in relevant part that “if the unrepresented party or

counsel does not serve and file the required answering memoranda, ... such noncompliance may be deemed a consent to the ... granting of the motion and the

Court may dispose of the motion summarily.”

- 2 -

concurs, that the record establishes that the plaintiff has abandoned the

prosecution of this action.

Having reviewed the record, the Court concludes that the plaintiff’s failure

to object to the defendants’ motion seeking the dismissal of this action should be

deemed to be his consent to the granting of the motion and the Court thus finds

that the motion should be summarily granted pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i).2

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’ Motions [sic] for Sanctions (doc. #22)

is granted pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i) and that this action is dismissed in its entirety

with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 6th day of February, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02395-PGR Document 24 Filed 02/07/08 Page 2 of 2