Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01286/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01286-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Robert Anderson, an Arizona resident,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Special Health Care

District dba Maricopa Integrated Health

System, a publicly funded entity; et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-01286-PHX-LOA

ORDER AND

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter arises on the Court’s review of the file. Plaintiff commenced this

action on or about July 11, 2008. (docket #1) On July 16, 2008, the Court issued a Notice

of Assignment and Order, docket # 5, ordering Plaintiff to file on or before August 5, 2008

his written election to either consent to a United States magistrate judge or elect to proceed

before a United States district judge. As of today’s date, the Plaintiff has failed to file his

written election to either consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before

a United States district judge. Defendants consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction on

August 19, 2008. (docket # 19)

Dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with the procedural rules of the

court is within the court’s discretion. Original Ballet Russe, Ltd. v. Ballet Theatre, Inc., 133

F.2d 187, 188 (2nd Cir. 1943); Sergio Bautista et al. v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3rd 837

(9th Cir. 2000). Moreover, district courts have the inherent power to control their dockets

Case 2:08-cv-01286-LOA Document 20 Filed 08/27/08 Page 1 of 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

1

 The file does not reflect any request for leave to amend Plaintiff’s Complaint or a

written stipulation that Plaintiff may do so. Unless Defendants file a motion to strike the

Amended Complaint on or before September 8, 2008, Defendants will be deemed to have

consented to this amendment.

- 2 -

and, in the exercise of that power, may impose sanctions including, where appropriate,

dismissal of a case. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). A dismissal for

want of prosecution under Rule 41(b) will stand unless it is an abuse of discretion. Link v.

Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962); Anderson v. Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th

Cir. 1976). Rule 41(b) specifically provides that the failure of the plaintiff to prosecute his

or her claim is grounds for involuntary dismissal of the action. Anderson v. Air West, Inc.,

542 F.2d at 524. The courts have read this rule to require prosecution with “reasonable

diligence” if a plaintiff is to avoid dismissal. Id. (citing Ballew v. Southern Pacific Co., 428

F.2d 787 (9th Cir. 1970)).

Because the period within which Plaintiff was to file his written consent or

election has passed, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing on or before Friday,

September 5, 2008 why his Complaint, should not be dismissed for failure to comply with

court orders and failure to diligently prosecute his case pursuant to Rule 41(b), FED.R.CIV.P.

 Plaintiff may discharge this OSC by complying with the Court’s July 16, 2008 Order on or

before on or before Friday, September 5, 2008.

The file also reflects that Plaintiff, apparently contrary to Rule 15(a)(2),

FED.R.CIV.P.,1

 filed his First Amended Complaint on August 5, 2008 without leave of the

Court. Since Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint has apparently corrected the issues raised

in Defendants’ August 4, 2008 Motion to Dismiss, Defendants’ seek an order withdrawing

their Motion to Dismiss.

Finally, if Plaintiff’s counsel are going to practice in this District Court, they

must learn and comply with its Local Rules as ordered on July 16, 2008. Plaintiff’s use of

all capital letters, for example, in the caption of his First Amended Complaint instead of

Case 2:08-cv-01286-LOA Document 20 Filed 08/27/08 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

using “proper capitalization” as required by LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) is a technical violation of this

District Court’s Local Rules.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause in writing on or before Friday,

September 5, 2008 why his claims against Defendants should not be dismissed without

prejudice for failure to comply with this Court’s orders and failure to diligently prosecute his

case pursuant to Rule 41(b), FED.R.CIV.P. Plaintiff may discharge this OSC by complying

with the Court’s July 16, 2008 Order on or before on or before Friday, September 5, 2008.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Withdraw

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, docket # 17, is GRANTED. Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss, docket # 11, is hereby withdrawn.

DATED this 27th day of August, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01286-LOA Document 20 Filed 08/27/08 Page 3 of 3