Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01875/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01875-3/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

Derrick Johnson, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Officer Robert Brady, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-01875-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against Defendants on August 22, 2014. Doc. 1. 

On October 10, 2014, Defendants La Paz County, La Paz County Board of Supervisors, 

County Attorney Rogers, and County Public Defender Puchek filed a motion to dismiss. 

Doc. 11. On November 4, 2014, Defendants Brady, Newton, and the Town of Quartzsite 

filed a motion to dismiss. Doc. 20. On November 7, 2014, Defendant Samuel Vederman 

filed a motion to dismiss. Doc. 22. The Court entered an order on January 28, 2015 

dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint: (1) in part against Defendants Brady, Newton, and the 

Town of Quartzsite; (2) entirely as to Defendants Vederman, Rogers, Puchek, La Paz 

County, and La Paz County Board of Supervisors; (3) with prejudice against Defendants 

Vederman and Rogers; and (4) with prejudice as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against 

Defendant Puchek. Doc. 37. Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint by 

March 16, 2015. Id. at 17. 

 

Case 2:14-cv-01875-DGC Document 89 Filed 02/16/16 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 

 Plaintiff failed to notify the Court of his change of address, and mail was returned 

to the Court on February 12 and 23, 2015. Docs. 40, 41. The Court granted Plaintiff 

additional time to file an amended complaint, extending the deadline to May 1, 2015. 

Doc. 43. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 24, 2015. Doc. 44. Defendants 

filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. Docs. 49, 50, 51. On June 17, 2015, the 

Court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s amended allegations against Defendants 

Vederman, Rogers, Puchek, Welch, Town of Quartzsite, La Paz County, and La Paz 

County Board of Supervisors. Doc. 65. Only Defendants Brady and Newton remained. 

 On June 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal (Doc. 62), which was 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on November 2, 

2015 (Doc. 74-2). 

 On November 20, 2015 Defendants Brady and Newton filed a motion for 

summary judgment. Doc. 78. Once again, Plaintiff failed to file a notice of change of 

address with the Court and mail was returned to this Court as undeliverable. Docs. 81, 

82. On January 6, 2016, the Court issued an order giving Plaintiff until January 22, 2016 

to file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Doc. 83. Plaintiff has 

failed to comply with that order and respond to the motion within the time limit set forth 

in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For reasons stated below, the Court will dismiss 

this action without prejudice. 

 The Court explicitly warned Plaintiff that, even though he is proceeding pro se, he 

is still required to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Local 

Rules of Civil Procedure in prosecuting his case. See Docs. 25, 37, 65, 83. The Court 

cautioned Plaintiff that his case could be dismissed for his failure to respond to motions 

filed by opposing parties or for his failure to follow court orders. See id. Plaintiff was 

further warned that if he failed to prosecute this action, or if he failed 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, e.g., Doc. 65 at 9 (citing 

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 

Case 2:14-cv-01875-DGC Document 89 Filed 02/16/16 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 

54 (9th Cir. 1995)). 

 Before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with the rules 

or an order, the Court must weigh five factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 

resolution of litigation, (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket, (3) the risk of prejudice 

to the defendants, (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and 

(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (citing Henderson 

v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

 The factors favor dismissal. Plaintiff filed this suit more than 18 months ago. 

Doc. 1. He was served with the motion for summary judgment on November 20, 2015. 

He has had nearly three months to respond to the motion, but has failed to do so. 

Because the Court and the public have a strong interest in judicial efficiency and the 

prompt resolution of litigation, Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action weighs in favor 

of dismissal. The risk of prejudice to Defendants also weighs in favor of dismissal. 

Defendants who are forced to incur expenses and defend themselves in court are 

prejudiced by a plaintiff’s failure to respond to motions or to prosecute the case in a 

timely and efficient manner. Such is the case here, with the remaining Defendants. The 

fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. As for the fifth factor, the Court 

concludes that a dismissal with prejudice would be unduly harsh. Dismissal without 

prejudice is, however, an appropriate alternative sanction. The overall five-factor 

analysis favors dismissal. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. The Court, therefore, will dismiss 

this action without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, his failure to follow the 

applicable rules, and his failure to comply with the Court’s orders, including its January 

6, 2016 order (Doc. 83). 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. This action is dismissed without prejudice. 

 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 78) and Plaintiff’s 

motions to stay (Docs. 85, 88) are denied as moot. 

 

Case 2:14-cv-01875-DGC Document 89 Filed 02/16/16 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 

 3. The Clerk is directed to terminate this matter and enter judgment 

accordingly. 

 Dated this 16th day of February, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-01875-DGC Document 89 Filed 02/16/16 Page 4 of 4