Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00173/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00173-0/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Christian Dale Johnson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Dr. Rumsey, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-14-00173-PHX-DLR (BSB)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

 This matter is before the Court on its own review. Plaintiff commenced this action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status. 

(Doc. 9.) On September 30, 2014, the Court ordered service on Defendant Rumsey and 

directed Plaintiff to return a completed service packet for Defendant Rumsey to the Court 

within twenty-one days. (Doc. 16.) The September 30, 2014 Order also directed Plaintiff 

to notify the Court of a change of address in accordance with Local Rule of Civil 

Procedure 83.3(d). (Id. at 6.) 

 The deadline for returning the completed service packet passed, but Plaintiff did 

not return a completed service packet to the Court. Accordingly, the Court ordered 

Plaintiff to show cause on or before December 1, 2014 why his claims against Defendant 

Rumsey should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s 

order. (Doc. 17.) In the alternative, Plaintiff could return a completed service packet to 

the Court. (Id. at 2.) 

Case 2:14-cv-00173-DLR Document 25 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

 On November 18, 2014, Plaintiff submitted a service packet to the Court. 

However, because it did not include an address at which to serve Defendant Rumsey, the 

Clerk of Court returned the service packet to Plaintiff for completion. (Doc. 18.) The 

Court sent the service packet several times, but it was returned as undeliverable because 

Plaintiff had been moved to “Rynning Unit in Eyman Complex.” (Docs. 19, 20.) 

 On November 19, 2014, the Court again delivered the service packet to Plaintiff at 

Rynning Unit in Eyman Complex (Doc. 21), but Plaintiff did not return a completed 

service packet to the Court. In view of Plaintiff’s continued failure to return a completed 

service packet to the Court, on December 16, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show 

cause on or before December 30, 2014 why his case should not be dismissed for failure to 

comply with Court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (Doc. 22.) 

 On December 17, 2014, the Court’s December 16, 2014 Order was returned as 

undeliverable with a notation that Plaintiff had been moved to SMU I. (Doc. 23.) That 

same day, the Clerk of Court resent the December 16, 2014 order to Plaintiff at his new 

location. Plaintiff did not respond to that Order, or file a completed service packet. The 

Court has given Plaintiff ample time and opportunities to submit a completed service 

packet for service on Defendant Rumsey and the Court has warned him that failure to do 

so could result in dismissal of his action. (Docs. 17, 22.) Plaintiff, however, has neither 

responded to the most recent order to show cause (Doc. 22) nor returned a completed 

service packet to the Court. 

 Based on Plaintiff’s repeated failure to comply with Court orders, it is 

recommended that this matter be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with 

court Orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 

626, 629-31 (1962) (recognizing that a federal district court has the inherent power to 

dismiss a case sua sponte under Rule 41(b)). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss this matter without prejudice for 

failure to comply with Court orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

Case 2:14-cv-00173-DLR Document 25 Filed 02/06/15 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

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

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 4(a)(1), should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. The 

parties have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation 

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 and 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within 

which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the District Court’s 

acceptance of the Report and Recommendation without further review. See United States 

v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to file timely objections to 

any factual determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a 

party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered 

pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

 Dated this 6th day of February, 2015. 

 

Case 2:14-cv-00173-DLR Document 25 Filed 02/06/15 Page 3 of 3