Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01159/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01159-11/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

Barry Northcross Patterson, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 05-1159-PHX-RCB (SPL)

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Charles L. Ryan, et al. )

)

Defendants. ) )

On March 13, 2012, defendants Broderick and Mason filed a

“Motion for Order to Show Cause,” requesting “that the Court enter

[an] Order directing Plaintiff Patterson to show cause why this

case should not be dismissed based on his failure to prosecute

it[.]” Mot. (Doc. 144) at 2:14-15. That defense motion was based

upon plaintiff’s refusal of delivery of legal mail. See Ord. (Doc.

148) at 1:23-24 (citations omitted). On March 19, 2012, this court

ordered pro se plaintiff Patterson to file and serve within 14

“days of the date of entry of this order a response as to why the

court should not dismiss this action for failure to prosecute or to

comply with court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Case 2:05-cv-01159-RCB Document 154 Filed 04/17/12 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 -

Procedure 41(b)[.]” Id. at 2:12-15. In so ordering, this court

reasoned:

This action has been pending nearly seven years. 

 There is only one claim remaining. Since December, 

 2011, as the record amply shows, the court and 

 defendants have accommodated plaintiff with respect 

 to various issues he has been having with his physical 

 and mental state – issues which may have been caused 

 by or attributable to his periodic self-imposed hunger 

 strikes. 

Id. at 2:1-6 (emphasis in original). This court further reasoned:

“This most recent turn of events, where plaintiff is refusing

delivery of legal mail, . . . hence seriously call[s] into question

his intent to pursue this litigation[.]” Id. at 2:6-9.

Plaintiff’s response, although timely, is, for the most part

non-responsive. Plaintiff did indicate that he would be responding

to defendants’ summary judgment also filed on March 13, 2012; and

he timely did that. See Resp. (Doc. 151). 

Despite the foregoing, the defendants assert that plaintiff’s

“actions . . . are not entirely consistent with his words.” Reply

(Doc. 152) at 1:23-24. Defendants fault plaintiff for not keeping

the court apprised of his changes in mailing addresses, although he

has been moved a number of times. They further fault plaintiff for

refusing to accept “personal responsibility” for causing the

purported delay in delivery of legal mail, and for “selectively

accept[ing] delivery of his legal mail[.]” See Reply (Doc. 152) at

2:2; and 2:17. Additionally, defendants claim that plaintiff has

“needlessly expanded this litigation through his self-destructive

behaviors.” Id. at 2:17-18. 

As the record shows, since at least December, 2011, plaintiff

has engaged in self-imposed hunger strikes, evidently “tr[ying] to

Case 2:05-cv-01159-RCB Document 154 Filed 04/17/12 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 -

exercise his right to die[.]” Resp. (Doc. 149) at 1, ¶ 5. 

Defendants express concern that plaintiff has “never explicitly

stated that he intends to make every effort not to repeat [such]

self-destructive behaviors, Reply (Doc. 152) at 2:11-12, which

evidently necessitated plaintiff being placed “on ‘suicide’ watch”

as recently as February 15, 2012 - March 9, 2012. See Resp. (Doc.

149) at 1, ¶ 3). Such conduct, from defendants’ standpoint,

“undermin[es] [plaintiff’s] “asserted desire to pursue this

case[.]” Reply (Doc. 152) at 2:11. 

Defendants acknowledge the possibility that the court may

conclude, that “dismissal is too severe a sanction for

[plaintiff’s] temporary abandonment of this case[.]” Id. at 2:22-

23. In that event, the defendants request that the court issue an

order “especially so as to impress upon [plaintiff] that it will

not condone these kinds of practices in the future.” Id. at 2:25-

26.

After seven years of litigation, only one aspect of this

action remains – plaintiff’s claim that defendants violated his

free exercise rights under the First Amendment. That narrow claim

is the subject of defendants’ summary judgment motion filed March

13, 2012. Given the plaintiff’s timely response to that motion,

and the overall preference for resolution on the merits, this court

will not dismiss the present action for failure to prosecute. 

Plaintiff’s response sufficiently evinces his intent to pursue the

last remaining aspect of this litigation. Further, the only

possible filing allowed, is a reply by defendants, if they so

desire. Thus, regardless of plaintiff’s conduct going forward, his

behavior cannot, and will not, deter the court from deeming this

Case 2:05-cv-01159-RCB Document 154 Filed 04/17/12 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 -

matter “ready for decision without oral argument on the day

following the date set for filing a reply[.]” See Ord. (Doc. 148)

at 3:18-19.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the court hereby

DENIES, without prejudice, the Motion for an Order to Show Cause

filed by defendants Broderick and Mason (Doc. 144).

DATED this 17th day of April, 2012.

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

Case 2:05-cv-01159-RCB Document 154 Filed 04/17/12 Page 4 of 4