Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00557/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00557-2/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 - 1 -

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alexander Cruz, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CV 06-0557-PHX-PGR (ECV)

)

vs. )

) ORDER

Joseph Arpaio, )

)

Defendant. ) )

Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (doc. #9), filed 

May 26, 2006, wherein the defendant seeks the dismissal of this action in its

entirety on the ground that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e). The plaintiff has to date failed to

file any response in opposition to the motion notwithstanding that Magistrate

Judge Voss entered an order (doc. #11) on June 9, 2006 wherein he notified the

plaintiff of the existence of the motion to dismiss and required him to file his

response to the motion no later than July 9, 2006. The order further advised the

plaintiff that the motion could be granted pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i) and this action

dismissed with prejudice if he failed to timely respond to the motion.

Case 2:06-cv-00557-PGR-ECV Document 18 Filed 09/14/06 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

On July 27, 2006, the defendant filed a Motion to Summarily Grant

Defendant's Previously Filed Motion to Dismiss (doc. #14) due to the plaintiff's

failure to respond to the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff has to date also failed to

file any response to this motion.

The Court concludes that the dismissal of this action is mandated

notwithstanding that all of the orders sent to the plaintiff by the Court since May

18, 2006 have been returned to the Court as undeliverable, apparently because

the plaintiff has been released from custody. In the Court's service order (doc.

#3) entered on March 7, 2006, which was not returned to the Court as

undeliverable, the Court specifically advised the plaintiff that it was his

responsibility to immediately file with the Court and serve on the defendant a

notice setting forth any change in his address; it also specifically advised him that

his failure to do so could result in the dismissal of this action pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,

1441 (9th Cir. 1988) ("Carey's suggestion that we impose upon the district court

an affirmative obligation to call the jailhouse to inquire into his whereabouts prior

to dismissing his lawsuit is unacceptable. A party, not the district court, bears the

burden of keeping the court apprised of any changes in his mailing address.")

The Court finds that the defendant's motions to dismiss should be granted

pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i) due to the plaintiff's failure to oppose them and on their

merits for the reasons stated therein. Furthermore, having considered the factors

set forth in Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986), the Court 

finds that this action should be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) due the

plaintiff's failures to obey court orders. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (doc. #9) and

Case 2:06-cv-00557-PGR-ECV Document 18 Filed 09/14/06 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

Defendant's Motion to Summarily Grant Defendant's Previously Filed Motion to

Dismiss (doc. #14) are both granted and that this action is dismissed in its

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

DATED this 12th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00557-PGR-ECV Document 18 Filed 09/14/06 Page 3 of 3