Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01024/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01024-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas A. Callan, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Commissioner of the Internal Revenue

Service, the Department of Treasury, The

Disclosure Office U. S. Tax Court

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1024-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter arises upon the Court's review of the file. On October 5, 2006,

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (docket #1 5) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), (5) and (6),

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to effect

service of process, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

Plaintiff is hereby advised of the following provisions of LRCiv 7.2(i), Rules of

Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, effective December

1, 2005:

If a motion does not conform in all substantial respects with the

requirements of this Local Rule, or if the opposing party does not serve

and file the required answering memoranda, or if counsel for any party

fails to appear at the time and place assigned for oral argument, such

non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of

the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.

It is a pro se plaintiff's obligation, like any party, to timely respond to all motions.

LRCiv. 7.2(c). The failure of Plaintiff to timely respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

Case 2:06-cv-01024-DGC Document 17 Filed 10/26/06 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 -

may, in the discretion of the court and among other things, be deemed a consent to the

granting of that motion without further notice, and judgment may be entered dismissing the

complaint and lawsuit with prejudice pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i). Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d

651 (9th Cir. 1994); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir.1995). This means the case is

over.

On the Court's own motion and in order to manage this case more efficiently, the

Court will set a briefing schedule.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That Plaintiff shall have until November 10, 2006 within which to file a

Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

2. That Defendants shall have until November 30, 2006 within which to file a

Reply to Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, if any.

3. That the Motion shall be deemed to be ready for decision without oral

argument on the day following the date set for filing the Reply unless otherwise ordered by

the Court.

Dated this 25th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01024-DGC Document 17 Filed 10/26/06 Page 2 of 2