Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00294/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00294-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 18:241 Conspiracy Against Citizen 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

Bobby Scott, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-0294-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter arises upon the Court's review of the file. On March 26, 2007 a

Minute Order was issued (docket #15) advising all parties have voluntarily consented to have

the undersigned conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of final

judgment. On April 10, 2007 Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (docket #16) pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(1 and 6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for lack of jurisdiction and failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

The Court will not hold a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference until such time as the

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is fully briefed and the Court has made a ruling on

Defendant's dispositive motion.

Plaintiff is hereby advised of the following provisions of LRCiv 7.2(i), Rules of

Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, effective December

1, 2006:

If a motion does not conform in all substantial respects with the

requirements of this Local Rule, or if the opposing party does not serve

and file the required answering memoranda, or if counsel for any party

Case 2:07-cv-00294-ECV Document 17 Filed 04/13/07 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 -

fails to appear at the time and place assigned for oral argument, such

non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of

the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.

It is a pro se plaintiff's obligation, like any party, to timely respond to all motions.

LRCiv. 7.2(c). The failure of Plaintiff to timely respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

may, in the discretion of the court and among other things, be deemed a consent to the

granting of that motion without further notice, and judgment may be entered dismissing the

complaint and lawsuit with prejudice pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i). Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d

651 (9th Cir. 1994); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir.1995). This means the case is

over.

On the Court's own motion and in order to manage this case more efficiently, the

Court will set a briefing schedule.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That Plaintiff shall have until May 14, 2007 within which to file a Response

to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant may file a reply within 15 days

after service of Plaintiff’s response.

3. That the Motion shall be deemed to be ready for decision without oral

argument on the day following the date set for filing the Reply unless otherwise ordered by

the Court.

DATED this 13th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00294-ECV Document 17 Filed 04/13/07 Page 2 of 2