Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-02468/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-02468-0/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

Teresa Anne Parker,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Cottonwood, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2468 PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff filed this action in M aricop a County Superior Court on October 21, 2004.

See Doc. #1, Ex. A. Defendant s removed the case to this Court on November 9, 2004. See

Doc. #1. Judge Rosenblatt p ermit ted Plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw on March 8, 2005. See

Doc. #25.

On April 18, 2005, aft er transfer of the case from Judge Rosenblatt, this Court issued

an Order Setting Rule 16 Case Management Conference. See Doc. #29. The Order set a

conference for May 18, 2005, and required Plaintiff and Defendants to comply with

Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Order stated that Plaint iff was

required to init iat e the Rule 26(f) conference. See Doc. #29 at 4. Plaintiff failed to

communicate with Defendants in preparing a case management plan and failed t o appear

at t he Case Management Conference. See Doc. #35. The Court rescheduled the

conference for June 17, 2005, and specifically warned Plaintiff that her failure to participate

in case management procedures would result in dismissal of this case for lack of

prosecution. See Doc. #35 at 2. Plaintiff responded by filing a motion on June 15, 2005,

Case 3:04-cv-02468-DGC Document 42 Filed 11/07/05 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

 As noted above, t his is the address to which defense counsel mailed their recent letter

– a letter to which Plaintiff did not respond.

- 2 -

seeking a 120-day extension because she was incarcerated in California. See Doc. #36.

Recognizing the impediment caused by Plaint iff’s incarceration, the Court granted the

extension and rescheduled the Case Management Conference for November 2, 2005, at 4:30

p.m. The Court warned Plaintiff that it was granting “one more extension in this case” and

that “[i]f Plaintiff fails diligently to prosecute the action after this extension, the Court will

dismiss the case for lack of prosecution.” See Doc. #39.

Plaintiff again failed to initiate or participate in a Rule 26(f) conference as ordered.

See Doc. #41. Plaintiff also failed to appear at the Case Management Conference on

November 2, 2005. Defense counsel informed the Court at the conference that they had

attempted to contact Plaintiff by sending a letter, approximately three weeks earlier, to the

address listed by Plaintiff in a Notice of Change of Address. See Doc. #40. Neither

defense counsel had received a response to the letter or any other communication from

Plaintiff. The Court informed defense counsel at t he conference that it would dismiss

Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of prosecution.

Following the November 2, 2005 Case Management Conference (and a second case

management conference in another case), and after defense counsel had left the courtroom,

Plaintiff appeared, accompanied by an unidentified male. The Court conferred briefly with

Plaintiff on t he record. The Court informed Plaintiff that the conference had been

completed and that it had announced it s decision to dismiss her case for failure to

prosecute. The Court st at ed t hat Plaintiff would receive a copy of the Court’s order and

confirmed that Plaintiff’s address is t hat listed in the Notice of Change of Address. See

Doc. #40.1

 Plaintiff explained her late arrival at the Case Management Conference by

stating that her p lane had been late and that she had called the Court’s staff to inform

them. Following the hearing the Court checked wit h its staff and learned that they had

received a phone call earlier in the day from a gentleman asking for directions from the

Case 3:04-cv-02468-DGC Document 42 Filed 11/07/05 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 -

airport, but were not notified that Plaintiff would be arriving late to the hearing.

Rule 41(b) states that the Court may dismiss an action “[f]or failure of the plaintiff

to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). See

also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that district court did

not abuse it s discretion in dismissing the pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to comply

with a court order). The Court finds t hat Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action. This

case has been pending for more than one year. Plaintiff has repeatedly disregarded the

Court’s orders to participate in case management procedures as well as the Court’s express

warnings that her claims would be dismissed if she failed to comply. The Court concludes

that dismissal is warranted under Rule 41(b).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is di smi ssed. The Clerk is directed to

terminate this matter.

DATED this 6th day of November, 2005.

Case 3:04-cv-02468-DGC Document 42 Filed 11/07/05 Page 3 of 3