Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00998/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00998-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

MarcoAntonio Jimenez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Julie P. Newell; Christopher T. Whitten;

Andrew Thomas; Joseph M. Arpaio; and

State of Arizona,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-998-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On May 11, 2009, Plaintiff MarcoAntonio Jimenez filed a complaint against

Defendants Julie Newell, Christopher Whitten, Andrew Thomas, Joseph Arpaio, and the

State of Arizona. Dkt. #1. The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Dkt. #14.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 11, 2009. Dkt. #17.

On August 7, 2009, prior to the filing of the amended complaint, Defendants Thomas

and Arpaio filed a motion to quash service and a motion for more definite statement.

Dkt. #16. The Court will deny the motion for more definite statement as moot given the

filing of the amended complaint.

Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion to quash service as required by the

Court’s Local Rules of Civil Procedure. See LRCiv 7.2(c). The Court previously has

advised Plaintiff that he must become familiar with, and follow, both the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and the Court’s Local Rules. Dkt. #14 at 4. Local Rule 7.2 provides that if

a defendant files a motion and the plaintiff does not serve and file the required response,

Case 2:09-cv-00998-SRB Document 19 Filed 09/04/09 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 -

“such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the

Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” LRCiv 7.2(i). The Court will give Plaintiff

until September 25, 2009 to file a response to the motion to quash service.

Defendants Newell, Whitten, and the State of Arizona have filed a motion to dismiss

the amended complaint. Dkt. #18. The Court will require Plaintiff to file a response to that

motion by September 25, 2009.

Plaintiff is advised that if he fails to file the responses required by this order, the Court

will consider summarily granting Defendants’ motions. Plaintiff is further advised that if he

fails to prosecute this action or to comply with the rules or any Court order, the Court may

dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. See Dkt. #14 at 4-5; see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th

Cir.1992) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a pro se

plaintiff’s complaint for failing to comply with a court order).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant Thomas and Arpaio’s motion for more definite statement (Dkt. #16)

is denied as moot.

2. Plaintiff shall, by September 25, 2009, file a response to the motion to quash

service (Dkt. #16) and a response to the motion to dismiss the amended

complaint (Dkt. #18).

DATED this 4th day of September, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00998-SRB Document 19 Filed 09/04/09 Page 2 of 2