Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03662/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03662-0/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jeremy Alex Lunder, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

Joe Arpaio, 

Defendant. ______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3662 PHX ROS (JM)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and the Local Rules of Practice of the

United States District Court for the District of Arizona, this case was referred to the

Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation. For the

reasons explained below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after

independent review of the record, dismiss the Complaint [Docket No. 1] with prejudice due

to the Plaintiff's failure to provide a current address and to prosecute this action. 

Plaintiff filed pro se the above-titled civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

on November 15, 2005, complaining about the conditions at the Durango Jail in Phoenix,

Arizona. By Order dated November 21, 2005, the Clerk of Court was ordered to send a

service packet to the Plaintiff [Docket No. 4]. The service packet was returned and the

Defendant executed a waiver of service on December 23, 2005 [Docket No. 5]. The

Defendant, on February 9, 2006, filed a Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 6]. The Court

thereafter issued an order directing Plaintiff to respond by March 14, 2006 [Docket No. 7].

On February 28, 2006, the order was returned as undeliverable [Docket No. 8]. The reason

noted for the return was Plaintiff's release. 

Case 2:05-cv-03662-ROS-JR Document 9 Filed 03/31/06 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

27

28

2

In Judge Silver's order dated November 21, 2005, Plaintiff was warned that the failure

to file a Notice of Change of Address may result in the dismissal of the action for failure to

prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover,

Plaintiff has failed to respond to the pending motion within the time provided by the rules

and by the Court. As the Plaintiff has failed timely to respond to the Motion to Dismiss and

has failed to inform the Court of his current whereabouts, he has failed to pursue the

prosecution of his case and he is in violation of Judge Silver's order. Moreover, without a

current address, there is little the Court can do to attempt to remedy this situation. As such,

dismissal of this action with prejudice is appropriate. Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health

Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 855, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal for failure to prosecute acts as an

adjudication on the merits).

Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court,

after its independent review, issue an Order dismissing this matter with prejudice. 

This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 

However, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of service of a copy of this

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District Court. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to the objections.

If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV 05-3662-PHXROS. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate

Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues.

See United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

DATED this 31st day of March, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03662-ROS-JR Document 9 Filed 03/31/06 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

27

28

3

Case 2:05-cv-03662-ROS-JR Document 9 Filed 03/31/06 Page 3 of 3