Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03975/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03975-0/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 SVK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Donald Jones, Jr.

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, et al.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3975-PHX-JAT (MHB)

ORDER

On December 7, 2005, Plaintiff Robert Donald Jones, Jr., who was confined in the

Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. #1.) Thereafter, he filed an Amended Complaint naming Defendants

Joseph Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff; Nick Larkin, Commander Fourth Avenue Jail; Chad

Swiman, Detention Officer at Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO); and Jesus Perez,

Detention Officer at MCSO. (Doc. #28.) Plaintiff raised an Eighth Amendment claim for

failure to protect and a state-law claim of negligence. (Id.)

Defendants moved for summary judgment. (Doc. #48.) Plaintiff has not filed a

response, and the time to do so has passed. (Doc. #52.) Defendants also filed a motion for

summary disposition of the motion for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss the case

for failure to prosecute. (Doc. ##56, 61.) Plaintiff has not filed a response to either of these

two motions. 

The Court will grant the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, deny all pending

motions as moot, and dismiss the action.

Case 2:05-cv-03975-JAT-MHB Document 62 Filed 01/11/08 Page 1 of 4
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

 Defendants also asserted that Plaintiff acknowledged that he will not participate in

any further proceedings regarding this case, and cite to a letter from Plaintiff dated

September 23, 2007, that was to be attached to the motion. (Doc. #61 at 2-3.) The document

is not attached to the motion but appears to be attached to the Proposed Pretrial Order. (Doc.

#60, Ex. 2.) In it Plaintiff stated that he will not “fill out or send any material whatsoever

without the assistance of competent counsel.”

- 2 -

I. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute

On November 27, 2007, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss for failure to

prosecute. Defendants asserted that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s February

14, 2007 Scheduling Order and July 27, 2007 Order regarding Plaintiff’s time to respond to

the summary judgment motion, has failed to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests, and

refused to cooperate with Defendants in preparing the Joint Pretrial Report.1

 (Doc. #61 at

1.) Defendants argued that Plaintiff’s failure to cooperate has severely prejudiced their

ability to defend their case. 

II. Failure to Prosecute

Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. See Fidelity Philadelphia Trust

Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). Rule 41(b) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply

with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action.” In

addition, Rule 7.2(c) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the opposing party

has ten days after service of a motion within which to serve and file a responsive

memorandum. Rule 7.2 (i) provides that if an unrepresented party or counsel does not serve

and file the required answering memorandum, such non-compliance with the Rule “may be

deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the

motion summarily.” Plaintiff has filed no response to the motion to dismiss.

In determining whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of the case,

the Court must weigh the following five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious

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

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

Case 2:05-cv-03975-JAT-MHB Document 62 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 4
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 -

availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.

1986). “The first two of these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while

the fourth factor cuts against a default or dismissal sanction. Thus the key factors are

prejudice and availability of lesser sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th

Cir. 1990).

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

to cooperate with discovery or filing the joint pretrial statement impedes the expeditious

processing of this case and prejudices Defendants’ preparation of their defense. The fourth

factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. The fifth factor requires the Court to consider

whether a less drastic alternative is available. But the Court need not exhaust every sanction

short of dismissal before finally dismissing a case. See Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The

Court notes that, in connection with the summary judgment motion, Plaintiff was advised that

Local Rule 7.2(i) permits summary disposition of a motion if no answering memorandum is

filed. (Doc. #52.) Most important, because Plaintiff filed no response to the motion to

dismiss, he neither controverted Defendants’ assertions regarding his lack of cooperation or

intention not to participate further nor objected to dismissal, and there is nothing in the record

to suggest that Plaintiff did not receive a copy of the motion. Under these circumstances, the

Court will dismiss the case.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn with respect to

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution (Doc. #61), and the motion is

granted.

(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-03975-JAT-MHB Document 62 Filed 01/11/08 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

(3) This action is dismissed, and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly

DATED this 11th day of January, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-03975-JAT-MHB Document 62 Filed 01/11/08 Page 4 of 4