Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01869/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01869-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

Mark Lewellyn Lindsey, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Peter Michael Williams; Emilie Diane

Halladay; Ljubomir Peter Atanasoff;

John Robert Walston, Jr.; William Lee

Morris, Jr.; and Stephanie A. Stromfors, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1869-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against Defendants on September 9, 2009. Dkt. #1.

On March 3, 2010, Defendants Peter Williams and Emilie Halladay filed a motion to dismiss

the amended complaint (Dkt. #31) for failure to state a claim to relief. Dkt. #39. Defendant

Stephanie Stromfors filed a similar motion on March 8, 2010. Dkt. #44. Plaintiff has filed

no response, and the time for doing so has expired. See LRCiv 7.2(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).

Plaintiff shall have until April 30, 2010 to file responses to the motions to dismiss

(Dkt. ##39, 44).

Plaintiff must become familiar with, and follow, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (“Local Rules”).

See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same

rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th

Cir. 1986) (pro se litigants “should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys

of record”); Carter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986)

Case 2:09-cv-01869-DGC Document 49 Filed 04/14/10 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

27

28

- 2 -

(“Although pro se, [plaintiff] is expected to abide by the rules of the court in which he

litigates.”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available at the following Internet

website: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/. A copy of the Court’s Local Rules of Civil

Procedure may be obtained from the Clerk’s Office.

Rule 7.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure provides that an unrepresented party’s

failure to respond to a motion “may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion

and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” LRCiv 7.2(i). Plaintiff is advised that

if he does not file responses to the motions to dismiss (Dkt. #39, 44) by April 30, 2010, the

Court will summarily grant the motions. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to

prosecute this action, or if he fails to comply with the rules or any Court order, the Court may

dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992); Ghazali v. Moran,

46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff shall have until April 30, 2010 to file responses to Defendants’

motions to dismiss (Dkt. ##39, 44).

2. Plaintiff is warned that the Court will summarily grant the motions to dismiss

if Plaintiff fails to comply with this order.

DATED this 14th day of April, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01869-DGC Document 49 Filed 04/14/10 Page 2 of 2