Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01840/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01840-0/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

Adrian C. Arturo, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-1840-PHX-FJM (GEE)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On June 17, 2005, the plaintiff, a county jail inmate at the Lower Buckeye Jail in

Phoenix, Arizona, filed a complaint in this court claiming his civil rights were being violated

by his conditions of confinement. On July 14, 2005, this court screened the complaint and

ordered commencement of service. In that order, the court specifically warned the plaintiff

he must complete service within 60 days of the filing of the screening order or within the

120-day time limit allowed by FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m), whichever is later. 

 That same day, service packets were sent to the plaintiff for processing. The plaintiff

apparently returned the packets, but they were sent again to the plaintiff for a correction. The

plaintiff did not return the corrected packets. The time limits for service have passed, and

service has not been completed. 

Case 2:05-cv-01840-FJM Document 7 Filed 02/10/06 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 -

On January 9, 2006, this court issued an order to show cause why this case should not

be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order to show cause was mailed to the plaintiff,

but it was returned as undeliverable.

Recommendation

 The Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court, after its independent review of

the record, enter an order 

DISMISSING this action for failure to prosecute.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636 (b), any party may serve and file written objections within

10 days of being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. If objections are

not timely filed, the party’s right to de novo review may be waived. See United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). If objections are filed, the

parties should direct them to the District Court by using the following case number: CIV 05-

1840-PHX-FJM. 

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this report and recommendation to all parties.

DATED this 9th day of February, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01840-FJM Document 7 Filed 02/10/06 Page 2 of 2