Fiorani v. www.ripoffreports.com et al

Filing 24

ORDER that Plaintiff shall file and serve a responsive memorandum to Defendant Smith's Motions [22-23] before 5:00 p.m. on 12/17/09. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 12/3/09. (TLJ)

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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

ROSARIO A. FIORANI, JR., Plaintiff, vs. ALBERT LOWRY; et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV-08-02373-PHX-GMS ORDER

On December 29, 2008 Plaintiff Rosario A. Fiorani Jr. ("Plaintiff") filed a pro se complaint against several defendants in which he alleges violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241­42, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. # 1.) Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants conspired to violate his civil and constitutional rights when they allegedly falsely imprisoned, threatened, and intimidated Plaintiff. (See id.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants' conduct forced him to write a fraudulent letter in which he admitted guilt to some unspecified offense. (See id.) On October 26, 2009, Defendant Dennis J. Smith, a Judge for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in the Commonwealth of Virginia, moved to be dismissed from this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and12(b)(6). (Dkt. ## 22­23.) First, Defendant Smith brings a 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Dkt. # 22.) Defendant Smith also moves to dismiss on the basis of judicial immunity and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). (Dkt. # 23.) As of December 2, 2009, Plaintiff has failed to file a response to these Motions. Local Rule 7.2(c) provides that "[t]he opposing party shall . .

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

. have fourteen (14) days after service in a civil or criminal case within which to serve and file a responsive memorandum" to a Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Local Rule 12.1(b) further provides that a party shall have thirty days (30) to respond to a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See LRCiv. 12.1(b); 56.1(d). As of December 2, 2009, Plaintiff has not filed a timely responsive memoranda to Defendant Smith's Motions to Dismiss, nor has he sought extensions of time to do so. Under the Local Rules, if a party "does not serve and file the required answering memoranda . . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily." LRCiv. 7.2(i); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53­ 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in summarily granting defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to local rule where pro se plaintiff had time to respond to motion but failed to do so). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file and serve a responsive memorandum to Defendant Smith's Motions (Dkt. ## 22-23) before 5:00 p.m. on December 17, 2009. Should Plaintiff fail to comply, the Court may deem Plaintiff's failure to oppose these Motions as a waiver, and may grant the motions on that basis. DATED this 3rd day of December, 2009.

-2-