Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03711/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03711-2/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

Charlie Lee Evans, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

McWilliams, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV 05-3711-PHX-SMM (MHB)

ORDER

On December 15, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging

violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. (Doc. #16.) On December 20, 2006, the Court

ordered service on Defendants and informed Plaintiff that his failure to effect service on any

Defendant within 120 days of the filing of the Second Amended Complaint may result in the

dismissal of each Defendant not served pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 16.2(b)(2)(B)(i). (Doc. #17.) Despite the

Court’s Order, one of the named Defendants, Lt. York, had not been served; his summons

was returned unexecuted for lack of a valid address on January 17, 2007. (Doc. #20.)

Defendants subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff failed

to exhaust his administrative remedies on March 12, 2007. (Doc. #25.) On August 21, 2007,

the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and dismissed Defendants Davis, Scott,

and Holly. (Doc. #31.) The Court further ordered Plaintiff to show cause within 20 days as

to why Defendant York should not be dismissed for failure to serve pursuant to Rule 4(m)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. #31.) On September 6, 2007, Plaintiff filed

Case 2:05-cv-03711-SMM-MHB Document 33 Filed 10/09/07 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 -

a response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause essentially rearguing the merits of his case.

(Doc. #32.)

In light of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order to Show Cause and

provide the Court with an explanation as to why Defendant York should not be dismissed,

the Court will determine whether to dismiss this matter.

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)).

Here, the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiff’s failure

to properly respond to Court orders prevents the case from proceeding in the foreseeable

future. The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. The fifth factor requires the

Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative is available. The Court has already

ordered Plaintiff to show cause why Defendant York – the remaining Defendant in this

matter – should not be dismissed. Plaintiff failed to comply and, instead, filed a response

rearguing the merits of his case.

The Court finds that only one less drastic sanction is realistically available. Rule

41(b) provides that a dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as an adjudication upon the

merits “[u]nless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies.” In the instant case,

the Court finds that a dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh. The Second

Amended Complaint and this action will therefore be dismissed without prejudice pursuant

to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-03711-SMM-MHB Document 33 Filed 10/09/07 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 -

Accordingly,

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

failure to comply with Court orders and for failure to prosecute.

DATED this 9th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-03711-SMM-MHB Document 33 Filed 10/09/07 Page 3 of 3