Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01201/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01201-7/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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Brian Giddens, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Deputy Warden R.W. White, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1201-PHX-SMM (JJM)

AMENDED ORDER

This Order amends and replaces the orders previously entered March 14, 2008 (Doc.

#18) and March 27, 2008 (Doc. #19). The amendment is necessary to correct a typographical

error contained in the previous orders incorrectly identifying Defendant Deputy Warden

R.W. White as Defendant “Wright.” 

Before the Court is Defendants White, Reeder, Signona, Matos, and Lunka’s Motion

to Dismiss, alleging that Plaintiff’s claim is barred by Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641

(1997). (Doc. #15). Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss on December 17, 2007. (Id.)

The magistrate judge warned Plaintiff that failure to respond could be deemed a consent to

the granting of the Motion to Dismiss, and ordered Plaintiff to respond by February 8, 2008.

(Doc. #16, Order dated Jan. 8, 2008.) The Court withdrew the reference to the magistrate

judge on February 15, 2008, and noted that Plaintiff had failed to respond as ordered. To

date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss nor has he requested an

Case 2:07-cv-01201-SMM-JR Document 21 Filed 03/28/08 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

27

28

- 2 -

extension of time. The Court will treat Plaintiff’s failure to respond as a consent to the

granting of the Motion to Dismiss. LRCiv 7.2(i).

The sole remaining Defendant is Defendant Stuart, who has not yet been served. As

the Court is granting the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #15), Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

does not set forth any further claims. Therefore the Court will dismiss Defendant Stuart and

terminate this action. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #15).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 

(Doc. #7).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Defendant Stuart.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to terminate this

action.

DATED this 28th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01201-SMM-JR Document 21 Filed 03/28/08 Page 2 of 2