Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02242/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02242-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Andrew Sanchez,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2242-PHX-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

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

action on July 27, 2005. (Docket # 1.) On December 5, 2005, the Court ordered service on

Defendants and ordered Plaintiff to file completed service packets by December 27, 2005.

(Docket # 3.)

Although the deadline for returning the completed service packets passed more than

seven months ago, Plaintiff has neither returned completed service packets to the Court nor

otherwise effected service on Defendants. In view of Plaintiff's failure to comply with court

orders and failure to accomplish service of process, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause

on or before August 10, 2006 why this matter should not be dismissed without prejudice for

failure to comply with Court orders pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and for failure to serve

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). (Docket # 7.)

Plaintiff has neither responded to the order to show cause nor returned the completed

service packets to the court. In view of Plaintiff's continued disregard for court orders, the

Court will determine whether to dismiss this matter. 

Case 2:05-cv-02242-SMM-LOA Document 8 Filed 09/01/06 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

- 2 -

When considering whether to dismiss an action for failure to comply with court orders

and for failure to prosecute the court considers: "'(1) the public's interest in expeditious

resolution of litigation; (2) the court's needs to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to

defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the

availability of less drastic sanctions.'" Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir.

1988)(quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

The first two factors support dismissal. Plaintiff's failure to take any substantive action

since filing his Complaint has impeded the resolution of this case. Malone v. United States

Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Second, Plaintiff's failure to offer any

explanation for his delay in returning completed service packets weighs in favor of dismissal.

Third, Plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion as to the reasonableness of his delay and lack of

prejudice to Defendants. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1232 (9th Cir. 1984). Under Rule

41(b), Plaintiff is required to prosecute his case with reasonable diligence. Moore v. Telfon

Communications Corp., 589 F.2d 959, 967 (9th Cir. 1978). There is no evidence that Plaintiff

has contacted the Court or Defendants regarding this case. Plaintiff offers no excuse for his

failure to prosecute his claims or for his complete disregard for court orders. Under these

circumstances, the delay is unreasonable and creates a presumption of prejudice to Defendants.

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423. Fourth, the Court previously warned Plaintiff that the Court may

dismiss the matter if Plaintiff failed to comply with court orders and effect service within the

time limits prescribed. (Docket # 3, # 7.) Such warnings satisfy the Court's obligation to

consider less drastic alternatives to dismissal. Malone, 833 F.2d at 131. Finally, the public

policy in favor of deciding cases on the merits weighs against dismissal. This factor alone,

however, is insufficient to outweigh the other factors that support dismissal. Id.

After review of the foregoing factors, the Court finds that this matter should be dismissed

based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute. Fed.R.Civ.P.

41(b).

Accordingly, 

Case 2:05-cv-02242-SMM-LOA Document 8 Filed 09/01/06 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 -

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter be DISMISSED without prejudice for

failure to comply with court orders and for failure to prosecute. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

DATED this 31st day of August, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02242-SMM-LOA Document 8 Filed 09/01/06 Page 3 of 3