Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02070/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02070-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Randall Bell,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2070-PHX-JAT (LOA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter arises on the Court’s review of the file. Plaintiff commenced this action on

July 13, 2005. (document # 1) On September 22, 2005, the Court ordered service on Defendant

Arpaio and ordered Plaintiff to file a completed service packet by October 12, 2005. (document

# 4) Although the deadline for returning the completed service packet passed, Plaintiff neither

returned a completed service packet to the Court nor otherwise effected service on Defendant.

In view of Plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders and failure to accomplish service of

process, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for

failure to comply with Court orders. 

Thereafter, on April 8, 2006, the Court received returned mail addressed to Plaintiff

marked "undeliverable, released." No alternate address for Plaintiff was found. (document #

8) 

To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the show-cause order, served Defendant, or notified the

Court of his current address. The Court, therefore, will consider whether to dismiss this matter

for failure to comply with court orders. 

Case 2:05-cv-02070-JAT Document 7 Filed 04/19/06 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 -

When considering whether to dismiss an action for failure to comply with Court orders,

the court considers: "'(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the

court's needs to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants; (4) the public policy

favoring the disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

sanctions.'" Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988)(quoting Henderson v. Duncan,

779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

The first two dismissal factors support dismissal. Plaintiff's failure to take any

substantive action since filing a Complaint on July 13, 2005 has impeded the resolution of this

case. Malone v. United States Postal Service, 83 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Second,

Plaintiff's failure to offer any explanation for his delay in returning a completed service packet

weighs in favor of dismissal. Third, Plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion as to the

reasonableness of his delay and lack of prejudice to Defendant. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d

1221, 1232 (9th Cir. 1984). Under Rule 41(b), Plaintiff is required to prosecute his case with

reasonable diligence. Moore v. Telfon Communications Corp., 589 F.2d 959, 967 (9th Cir.

1978). There is no evidence that Plaintiff has contacted the Court or Defendant regarding this

case. Plaintiff offers no excuse for his failure to prosecute his claims or for his complete

disregard for court orders. Under these circumstances, the delay is unreasonable and creates a

presumption of prejudice to defendant. Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423. Fourth, the order to

show cause warned Plaintiff that the Court may dismiss the matter if Plaintiff did not show

cause for his failure to comply with court orders. This warning satisfies the Court's obligation

to consider less drastic alternatives to dismissal. Malone, 833 F.2d at 131. Finally, the public

policy in favor of deciding cases on the merits weighs against dismissal. This factor alone,

however, is insufficient to outweigh the other factors which support dismissal. Id.

After review of the foregoing factors, the Court finds that this matter should be dismissed

based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED without prejudice

for failure to comply with court orders. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

Case 2:05-cv-02070-JAT Document 7 Filed 04/19/06 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 -

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 District Court=s judgment. The parties shall

have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file

specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(e),

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a

response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the

District Court without further review. See United States v. Reyna- Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate

Judge will be considered a waiver of a party=s right to appellate review of the findings of fact

in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge=s recommendation. See, Rule

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 17th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02070-JAT Document 7 Filed 04/19/06 Page 3 of 3