Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02373/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02373-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

ROSARIO A. FIORANI, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

ALBERT LOWRY; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-02373-PHX-GMS

ORDER

On December 29, 2008 Plaintiff Rosario A. Fiorani Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed a pro se

complaint against several defendants in which he alleges violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–42,

28 U.S.C. § 1343, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. # 1.) Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants

conspired to violate his civil and constitutional rights when they allegedly falsely imprisoned,

threatened, and intimidated Plaintiff. (See id.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants’ conduct

forced him to write a fraudulent letter in which he admitted guilt to some unspecified offense.

(See id.)

On October 26, 2009, Defendant Dennis J. Smith, a Judge for the Nineteenth Judicial

Circuit in the Commonwealth of Virginia, moved to be dismissed from this action pursuant

to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and12(b)(6). (Dkt. ## 22–23.) First, Defendant

Smith brings a 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Dkt. # 22.)

Defendant Smith also moves to dismiss on the basis of judicial immunity and failure to state

a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). (Dkt. # 23.) As of December 2, 2009, Plaintiff has failed to file

a response to these Motions. Local Rule 7.2(c) provides that “[t]he opposing party shall . .

Case 2:08-cv-02373-GMS Document 24 Filed 12/04/09 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 -

. have fourteen (14) days after service in a civil or criminal case within which to serve and

file a responsive memorandum” to a Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Local Rule 12.1(b)

further provides that a party shall have thirty days (30) to respond to a Motion to Dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction. See LRCiv. 12.1(b); 56.1(d). As of December 2, 2009, Plaintiff has not

filed a timely responsive memoranda to Defendant Smith’s Motions to Dismiss, nor has he

sought extensions of time to do so. Under the Local Rules, if a party “does not serve and file

the required answering memoranda . . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to

the . . . granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” LRCiv.

7.2(i); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53– 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that district

court did not abuse its discretion in summarily granting defendants’ motion to dismiss

pursuant to local rule where pro se plaintiff had time to respond to motion but failed to do

so). Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file and serve a responsive

memorandum to Defendant Smith’s Motions (Dkt. ## 22-23) before 5:00 p.m. on December

17, 2009. Should Plaintiff fail to comply, the Court may deem Plaintiff’s failure to oppose

these Motions as a waiver, and may grant the motions on that basis. 

DATED this 3rd day of December, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02373-GMS Document 24 Filed 12/04/09 Page 2 of 2