Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02623/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02623-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Antoin Thurman, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

) CIV 12-02623 PHX FJM MEA

vs. ) 

) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Glendale Police Department, )

et al., )

) 

 Defendants. ) 

_______________________________)

TO THE HONORABLE FREDERICK J. MARTONE:

Plaintiff filed his complaint on December 10, 2012.

On April 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On

August 1, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff to return service

packets to the Court for Defendants Lonnie Durham, Brent Durham,

Schoch, and Freeman. In the order of August 1, 2013, Plaintiff

was warned that his failure to acquire a waiver of service from

Defendants or to complete service of process on Defendants

within 60 days of the date the service order was issued, by

October 1, 2011, would result in the dismissal of claims or

defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and Rule 16.2(b)(2)(B), of the United States District

Court for the District of Arizona Local Rules of Civil

Procedure. The civil docket in this matter indicates that

service packets have not been returned to the Court.

Case 2:12-cv-02623-FJM Document 12 Filed 12/09/13 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

-2-

On November 12, 2013, the Court allowed Plaintiff

until December 6, 2013, to show cause why this case should not

be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s

order of August 1, 2013, and Plaintiff’s failure to effect

service of process on Defendants as required by the Court’s

order and Rule 4, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff

has failed to show cause for his failure to abide by the Court’s

orders and to effect service of process on Defendants. 

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 Link v. Wabash Railroad

Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962), the Supreme Court recognized

that a federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss

a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute, even though the

language of Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

appears to require a motion from a party. Moreover, in

appropriate circumstances, the Court may dismiss a complaint for

failure to prosecute even without notice or hearing. Id. at

633.

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 availability of less drastic sanctions.”

Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d

Case 2:12-cv-02623-FJM Document 12 Filed 12/09/13 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-

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. Johnson, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir.

1990).

Here, the first, second, and third factors favor

dismissal of this case. 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 concludes 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

Court therefore recommends that the amended complaint and this

action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to Rule

41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this action be

dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to serve the

Defendants in this matter and for Plaintiff’s failure to comply

with the Court’s orders.

This recommendation is not an order that is

immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the

Case 2:12-cv-02623-FJM Document 12 Filed 12/09/13 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-

District Court’s judgment.

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the

date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to

file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the

parties have fourteen (14) days within which to file a response

to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, Local Rules of Civil

Procedure for the United States District Court for the District

of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not

exceed seventeen (17) pages in length.

DATED this 6th day of December, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-02623-FJM Document 12 Filed 12/09/13 Page 4 of 4