Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00265/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00265-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Breuners Arizona
Defendant
Eugenia Derden
Plaintiff

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

Eugenia Derden,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Breuners Arizona,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0265-PHX-LOA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

 This matter arises on the Court’s review of the file. On February 11,

2008, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint. (docket #1) On February 14, 2008, the Court

issued a Notice of Assignment and Order. (docket #4) The Court’s Notice of Assignment

and Order ordered, among other things, “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, 2007. 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 at 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).”

 Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff expressly consented in writing to magistrate

judge jurisdiction pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (docket #5) 

On February 22, 2008, the Court issued an Order that Plaintiff’s Complaint,

docket #1, be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The

Case 2:08-cv-00265-LOA Document 8 Filed 03/06/08 Page 1 of 2
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 -

Court further ordered that Plaintiff has until and including Friday, March 7, 2008 to file

an Amended Complaint. (docket #6)

Thereafter, on March 3, 2008, the Court received returned mail addressed to

Plaintiff marked “return to sender/insufficient address/unable to forward.” No alternate

address for Plaintiff was found. (document #7). Plaintiff has violated the Court’s Orders

by failing to advise the Court of her new address in violation of LRCiv 83.3(d). In view

of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders, the Court will order Plaintiff to show

cause on or before March 21, 2008 why her action should not be dismissed with out

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

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before March 21, 2008 Plaintiff

shall show cause why this matter should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to

comply with Court orders pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.41(b).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED extending the time within which Plaintiff

may file an Amended Complaint to March 21, 2008.

DATED this 6th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00265-LOA Document 8 Filed 03/06/08 Page 2 of 2