Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03847/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03847-1/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

ALLAN DWAYNE LAIRD, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIV 05-03847 PHX JAT MEA

)

JOSEPH ARPAIO, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

) FOR DISMISSAL 

 Defendant. ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE

_______________________________)

Plaintiff filed his complaint on November 29, 2005.

On December 7, 2005, the Court issued an order requiring

Plaintiff to complete and return a service packet for Defendant

to the Court by December 27, 2006. That order warned Plaintiff

that his failure to timely comply with the provisions of the

order would result in the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to

Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has not

returned a service packet to the Court for Defendant. 

Plaintiff was warned that his failure to acquire a

waiver of service from Defendant or to complete service of

process on Defendant within 120 days of the date that he filed

his complaint, by March 28, 2006, would result in the dismissal

of the complaint pursuant to Rule 4(m), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and Rule 16.2(b)(2)(B), of the United States District

Court for the District of Arizona Local Rules of Civil

Case 2:05-cv-03847-JAT Document 7 Filed 04/24/06 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

1

 Because Plaintiff was released from custody, Plaintiff is

obligated to pay the filing fee for his section 1983 action within one month

of being released from custody. 

-2-

Procedure. The civil docket in this matter indicates that

Plaintiff has failed to acquire a waiver of service from

Defendant or to complete service of process on Defendant.

Rule 3.4, Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the

United States District Court for the District of Arizona

requires prisoner-litigants to comply with instructions attached

to the Court-approved complaint form for use in section 1983

actions. Those instructions provide: “You must immediately

notify the clerk ... in writing of any change in your mailing

address. Failure to notify the court of any change in your

mailing address may result in the dismissal of your case.” 

On April 3, 2006, the Court allowed Plaintiff until

April 21, 2006, to show cause why this case should not be

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s

order of December 7, 2005, and Plaintiff’s failure to effect

service of process on Defendant as required by the Court’s order

of December 7, 2005, and Rule 4, Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Plaintiff was apparently released from the custody

of the Arizona Department of Corrections prior to April 11,

2006.1 See Docket No. 6. Plaintiff has not provided the Court

with his current address. Plaintiff has failed to show cause

for his failure to abide by the Court’s orders and to effect

service of process on Defendant. 

Case 2:05-cv-03847-JAT Document 7 Filed 04/24/06 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-

THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this case be

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to serve the Defendant in this

matter and for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s

order of December 7, 2005.

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. 

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, 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 Court. Thereafter, the

parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to

the objections. Failure to timely file objections to any

factual or legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be

considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate

consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S.

900 (2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual or

legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will constitute a

waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of

fact and conclusions of law in an order or judgment entered

pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

DATED this 24th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03847-JAT Document 7 Filed 04/24/06 Page 3 of 3