Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01613/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01613-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

WO

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 

Demetrius Antwan Wilson,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Joseph M Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-14-01613-PHX-JAT (DMF)

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Demetrius Wilson’s August 10, 2016, appeal 

from an Order of Magistrate Judge Fine. (Doc. 219). Plaintiff requests a review of the 

Order by an en banc sitting of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

Plaintiff’s appeal will be reviewed by this Court, which looks to determine whether the 

Magistrate Judge committed “clear error.” Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (2012); Barten 

v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. CZV-12-0399-TUC-CKJ, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

133569, at *10 (D. Ariz. Sept. 23, 2014) (quoting Doe v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice 

Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010)). 

Plaintiff’s appeal stems from the Magistrate Judge’s August 8, 2016, Order 

requiring that Plaintiff establish, within twenty one (21) days, that he had complied with 

service of process for certain defendants, or risk dismissal of his case. (Doc. 198 at 1). 

The next day, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff had “attempted to return service 

packets for several defendants which did not make it back to the Clerk of the Court.” 

(Doc. 201 at 1). In light of Plaintiff’s efforts, the Magistrate Judge deemed the August 8, 

Case 2:14-cv-01613-JAT-DMF Document 220 Filed 08/19/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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

2016, Order to show cause satisfied. (Id. at 1-2). The appeal is therefore moot. To the 

extent Plaintiff appeals1from any other aspect of the Magistrate Judge’s August 8, 2016, 

Order, (Doc. 198), the Court finds nothing to suggest that “clear error” occurred. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s appeal, (Doc. 219), is DENIED, and the 

Magistrate Judge’s August 8, 2016 Order, (Doc. 198), is AFFIRMED.

Dated this 18th day of August, 2016.

 

1

Plaintiff asserts that “Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine has something personal

against the Plaintiff, and [is] seeking to thro[w] his [C]omplaint out.” (Doc. 219 at 1). 

Plaintiff fails to support this stand-alone assertion with any evidence, and the Court finds 

nothing to indicate that the Magistrate Judge has been anything other than impartial. 

Thus, even assuming Plaintiff’s unsupported assertion can be properly characterized as an 

appeal, it is unpersuasive, and the Court finds no evidence that the Magistrate Judge 

clearly erred. 

Case 2:14-cv-01613-JAT-DMF Document 220 Filed 08/19/16 Page 2 of 2