Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00620/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00620-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stanley Fishman
Plaintiff
Mel Clayton Ford
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Stanley Fishman,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Mel Clayton Ford,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-0620-PHX-LOA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

action on or about March 23, 2007 (docket #1) On April 13, 2007 the Court issued a Notice of

Assignment and Order (docket #6) ordering that Plaintiff shall file on or before April 23, 2007

his written election to either consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before

a United States district judge. The Court further ordered that Plaintiff shall serve upon the

Defendant the appropriate consent form, mailed on March 23, 2007 to Plaintiff, at the time of

service of his Complaint upon the Defendant.

As of this date, the Plaintiff has failed to file his written election to either consent

to magistrate judge jurisdiction or elect to proceed before a United States district judge. 

On April 13, 2007, the Court took under advisement (docket # 5) Plaintiff’s

Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended

Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion on 

April 18, 2007 (docket #7) which the Court has granted under separate order this date.

Case 2:07-cv-00620-LOA Document 10 Filed 04/27/07 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 -

In the Court’s Notice of Assignment and Order (docket #6), the Court further

ordered that Plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint in compliance with Rule 8(a),

FED.R.CIV.P., and LRCIV.7.1 which shall contain a short and plaint statement of his factual

and legal allegations against the Defendant, specify the Court’s jurisdictional basis and clarify

the civil right’s or other federal or state statute(s) upon which Plaintiff is relying to support his

claim(s). 

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on April 18, 2007 (docket #8). The only

amendment which Plaintiff has made to his Complaint is to write in ?Relif (sic) is to get paid”.

The Court does not construe this amendment to Plaintiff’s Complaint to be in compliance with

Rule 8(a), RFD.R.CIV.P., and LRCIV 7.1 as set forth above. 

Dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with the procedural rules of the

court is within the court’s discretion. Original Ballet Russe, Ltd. v. Ballet Theatre, Inc., 133

F.2d 187, 188 (2nd Cir. 1943); Sergio Bautista et al. v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3rd 837 (9th

Cir. 2000). Moreover, district courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and in the

exercise of that power may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, dismissal of a case.

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992).

Because the period within which Plaintiff was to file his written election has

passed the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause on or before May 4, 2007 why sanctions should

not be imposed upon Plaintiff for failure to comply with the Court's order.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause in writing, on or before

May 4, 2007, why sanctions should not be imposed upon Plaintiff for failure to comply with

the Court's April 13, 2007 Order (docket #6) to either consent to a magistrate judge or elect to

have the case assigned to a district judge. Plaintiff may discharge any sanction by either

consenting to magistrate jurisdiction or electing the case be assigned to a district judge on or

before May 4, 2007.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended

Complaint in compliance with Rule 8(a), FED.R.CIV.P., and LRCIV.7.1 which shall contain

Case 2:07-cv-00620-LOA Document 10 Filed 04/27/07 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 -

a short and plain statement of his factual and legal allegations against the Defendant, specify

the Court’s jurisdictional basis, and clarify the civil right’s or other federal or state statute(s)

upon which Plaintiff is relying to support his claim(s). A review of the Court’s docket reflects

on April 13, 2007 the Clerk of the court mailed to Plaintiff a copy of ?Filing a Complaint in

Your Own Behalf”which attaches a copy of Rule 8(a), FEd.R.CIV.P.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any party, if unrepresented, shall

hereinafter comply with the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for 

the District of Arizona, as amended on December 1, 2006. The District’s Rules of Practice may

be found on the District Court’s internet web page at www.azd.uscourts.gov/.

All other rules may be found as www.uscourts.gov/rules/. The fact that a party is acting pro 

se does not discharge this party's duties to "abide by the rules of the court in which he litigates."

Carter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986).

DATED this 26th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00620-LOA Document 10 Filed 04/27/07 Page 3 of 3