Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00191/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00191-0/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 

Ricardo Ramirez, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Arizona Department of Corrections, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-00191-PHX-SPL (BSB)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court on its own review. On February 3, 2014, Plaintiff 

commenced this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and requested 

permission to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 1.) On September 18, 2014, the Court 

granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status. (Doc. 11.) The Court also ordered Defendant 

Ramos to answer Count One of the Complaint and ordered the United States Marshal 

Service (USMS) to serve Defendant Ramos. (Id.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s 

remaining claims and the remaining Defendants. (Id.) To facilitate service, the Court 

ordered Plaintiff to return a completed service packet for service on Defendant Ramos to 

the Court within twenty-one days of the filing of the September 18, 2014 Order. 

(Doc. 11 at 27.) 

 After that deadline passed, on October 21, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to 

show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case based on Plaintiff’s failure to 

return a completed service packet to the Court. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff filed a response 

explaining why he had not returned a completed service packet to the Court. (Doc. 16.) 

Case 2:14-cv-00191-SPL Document 30 Filed 07/28/15 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

Therefore, the Court found that Plaintiff had discharged his obligation to respond to the 

order to show cause and did not dismiss the case. (Doc. 17.) In the meantime, Plaintiff 

filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, but did not file a proposed 

amended pleading. (Doc. 14.) On October 31, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff sixty 

days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint.1

 (Doc. 18.) 

 On December 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.2

 (Doc. 20.) 

Thereafter, the assigned magistrate judge screened the First Amended Complaint and 

filed a report and recommendation recommending dismissal of all claims and defendants, 

except for Plaintiff’s claims asserted against Defendant Ramos in Count One of the First 

Amended Complaint. (Doc. 25 at 3-4.) On May 22, 2015, the Court adopted the report 

and recommendation and ordered Plaintiff to return a completed service packet for 

service on Defendant Ramos to the Court within twenty-one days of the filing of the May 

22, 2015 Order. 

 On June 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file a second 

amended complaint. (Doc. 26.) On June 9, 2015, the Court denied the motion because 

there was no pending deadline for filing a second amended complaint. (Doc. 27.) The 

Court advised Petitioner that because he had already amended his complaint, he needed 

the Court’s permission to file a second amended complaint. (Id.) The Court also advised 

Plaintiff that a party seeking permission to file an amended complaint must comply with 

Rule 15.1 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, and set forth the requirements of that 

rule. (Id. at 2.) 

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

not return a completed service packet to the Court. Accordingly, on July 6, 2015, the 

Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, on or before July 20, 2015, why the Court should 

not dismiss this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s May 22, 

 

1

 At that time, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan. 

2

 On April 15, 2015, this matter was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade as a referral judge for pretrial proceedings. (Doc. 21.) 

Case 2:14-cv-00191-SPL Document 30 Filed 07/28/15 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

2015 Order. (Doc. 28); See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (stating that the Court may dismiss an 

action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with [the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure] or a court order . . . .”). 

 On July 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a response to the Court’s Order. (Doc. 29.) 

However, Plaintiff’s response does not specifically address his failure to return a 

completed service packet to the Court for service on Defendant Ramos. Rather, he 

argues that dismissal is not appropriate because there is no deadline for filing an amended 

complaint and he is working on preparing an amended pleading. (Id.) He explains that 

he has been unable to file an amended pleading because he has limited access to legal 

resources and “mental incapacitations.” (Id. at 2.) 

 Plaintiff commenced this section 1983 action nearly eighteen months ago. 

(Doc. 1.) He has already filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 20.) Although Plaintiff 

may be experiencing difficulty preparing a second amended complaint due to his 

incarcerated status and health issues, he does not explain why he has failed to return a 

completed service packet to the Court for service on Defendant Ramos. Plaintiff chose 

when to commence this action and has had ample time to return a completed service 

packet for service on Defendant Ramos. Plaintiff does not explain how his plan to file a 

second amended complaint has prevented him from complying with the Court’s orders 

regarding returning a service packet to the Court for service on Defendant Ramos. 

Considering Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders, the Court recommends 

that this matter be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this matter be dismissed without prejudice based 

on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Court orders. 

 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) of the Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s 

Case 2:14-cv-00191-SPL Document 30 Filed 07/28/15 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

judgment. The parties shall 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, 72. The parties shall have fourteen days within 

which to file responses to any objections. Failure to file timely objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the 

Report and Recommendation by the District Court 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 determinations 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 28th day of July, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-00191-SPL Document 30 Filed 07/28/15 Page 4 of 4