Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02544/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02544-0/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

Robert Joseph Benge,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 18-02544 PHX MTL (CDB)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE MICHAEL T. LIBURDI:

Plaintiff, who was formerly confined at the Arizona Department of Corrections 

prison in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 and an application to proceed in this matter in forma pauperis on August 9, 2018. 

In an order issued October 19, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis and assessed the statutory filing fee of $350. (ECF No. 5). 

In the Order at ECF No. 5 Plaintiff was cautioned that, in the event of his release he 

would be required to, within 30 days of his release, either: (1) notify the Court of his intent 

to pay the unpaid balance of the filing fee within 120 days; or (2) file a non-prisoner 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 5 at 15). Plaintiff was warned that his 

“[f]ailure to comply may result in dismissal of this action.” (Id.). 

The Arizona Department of Corrections Inmate Datasearch website indicates 

Plaintiff was released from custody on August 9, 2019. In an Order issued August 29, 2019, 

the Court allowed Plaintiff until September 30, 2019, to either pay the balance of the $350

filing fee or file a non-prisoner Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying 

Case 2:18-cv-02544-MTL--CDB Document 23 Filed 10/18/19 Page 1 of 3
- 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

Fees or Costs, noting that if the Court granted the non-prisoner Application to Proceed in 

District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Plaintiff would not be required to pay the 

balance of the $350 filing fee. (ECF No. 18). Attached to the Order was a non-prisoner 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Order at ECF No. 18 was returned as 

undeliverable. (ECF No. 19). On September 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of 

address. (ECF No. 21). On October 1, 2019, the Order to Show Cause was re-mailed to 

Plaintiff at the address noticed at ECF No. 21.1

Plaintiff has failed to either pay the remaining balance of the filing fee in this matter 

or file the required non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this matter be dismissed without prejudice for 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders at ECF No. 5 and ECF No. 18, see 

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss 

an action for failure to comply with any order of the Court), and his failure to pay the filing 

fee in this matter or seek to proceed in this matter as a non-prisoner without pre-payment 

of the filing fees and costs. 

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 

fourteen (14) 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 fourteen (14) 

days within which to file a response to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, Local Rules of 

Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, objections 

to the Report and Recommendation may not exceed seventeen (17) pages in length.

 

1 Similar orders were sent to Plaintiff at his new address in his other two pending prisoner 

civil rights matters, No. 18 cv 00349 MTL (CDB) and No. 19 cv 01187 MTL (CDB). 

Case 2:18-cv-02544-MTL--CDB Document 23 Filed 10/18/19 Page 2 of 3
- 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

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. 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 17th day of October, 2019.

Case 2:18-cv-02544-MTL--CDB Document 23 Filed 10/18/19 Page 3 of 3