Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00399/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00399-0/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

Guillermo Garcia, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-0399-PHX-NVW (JM)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and the Local Rules of Practice of the

United States District Court for the District of Arizona, this case was referred to the

Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation. Plaintiff

Guillermo Garcia has failed to timely return the service packet, including summonses and

waivers of service. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court,

after independent review of the record, dismiss the Complaint [Docket No. 1] with prejudice

due to the Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court’s orders and failure to prosecute this

action. 

In a document filed on July 21, 2008, Plaintiff indicated that, after some delay due to

his transfer, he had received the summonses, and stated that, “I will send the summon [sic]

papers this week.” Docket No. 10. The record reflects that the service packets, which were

ordered to be returned by August 1, 2008, have yet to be returned to the Clerk for service.

Case 2:08-cv-00399-NVW Document 11 Filed 10/09/08 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 -

Plaintiff’s failure to return the summons and request for waiver forms puts him in

violation of the Court’s order filed on June 16, 2008. In that Order, Plaintiff was directed to

return the forms withing 30 days of the filing date of the order, or by July 16, 2008. Docket

No. 7, p. 5. As indicated above, an entry in the docket reflects that the due date was later

extended until August 1, 2008. No other extensions appear in the record and Plaintiff

indicated that he had received the forms by at least July 21, 2008. Plaintiff has clearly failed

to comply with the Court’s order to timely return the summons and waiver forms. In the

same Order directing Plaintiff to return the documents to the Clerk for service by the

Marshals, Plaintiff was provided the following warning: 

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this

Order . . . the court may dismiss this action without further

notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.

1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to

comply with any order of the Court). 

Docket No. 7, p. 4. Based on this warning, and the Plaintiff’s failure to return the forms and

to prosecute this action, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this matter be dismissed with

prejudice is appropriate. Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 714

(9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal for failure to prosecute acts as an adjudication on the merits).

Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court,

after its independent review, issue an Order dismissing this matter with prejudice. 

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. 

However, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of service of a copy of this

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District Court. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to the objections.

If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV 08-399-PHXNVW. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the

Case 2:08-cv-00399-NVW Document 11 Filed 10/09/08 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 -

Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of

the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

DATED this 9th day of October, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00399-NVW Document 11 Filed 10/09/08 Page 3 of 3