Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00029/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00029-2/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

Rodney L. Schneider, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-029-PHX-JAT (GEE)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On January 4, 2006, the plaintiff filed a complaint in this court claiming his civil

rights were being violated by his conditions of confinement. On April 17, 2006, this court

screened the complaint and ordered commencement of service. 

In that service order, the court specifically warned the plaintiff he must complete

service within 60 days of the filing of the service order or within the 120-day time limit

allowed by FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m), whichever is later. Failure to do so, the court warned, could

lead to dismissal of the action. See also LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(i). 

The court sent a service packet to the plaintiff for processing. The plaintiff, however,

did not return the completed packet. The court issued the plaintiff an order to show cause

why this case should not be dismissed. The plaintiff did not file a timely response, and on

July 18, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending the District Court dismiss

the case for failure to prosecute.

Case 2:06-cv-00029-JAT Document 9 Filed 10/19/06 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 -

On July 26, 2006, the plaintiff filed a notice of change of address.

The District Court reviewed the record and found no indication that a copy of the

order to show cause had, in fact, been sent to the plaintiff. Accordingly, on September 13,

2006, the District Court issued an order (1) rejecting the Magistrate Judge’s report and

recommendation, (2) extending the deadline for responding to the order to show cause to 10

days after the date of the order (which was September 12, 2006), and (3) directing the Clerk

to mail the order to show cause and the court’s order to the plaintiff.

The order to show cause and the District Court’s order were mailed to the plaintiff on

September 13, 2006. The documents were not returned as undeliverable. The deadline has

passed, but the plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause. The time limits for

service have passed, and service has not been completed. 

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). 

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

DATED this 19th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00029-JAT Document 9 Filed 10/19/06 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 -

Case 2:06-cv-00029-JAT Document 9 Filed 10/19/06 Page 3 of 3