Robinson v. Arpaio et al
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the reference to the magistrate judge is withdrawn, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under Rule 41(b) for lack of prosecution, and defendants' 35 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED on grounds of mootness. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 3/22/11. (SAT)
-MEA Robinson v. Arpaio et al
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Akmal J. Robinson, Plaintiff, vs. Joseph M. Arpaio et al,
13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
No. CV 09-397-PHX-FJM ORDER
The court has before it defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 35). No response has been received. Our Rand order (doc. 37) was returned in the mail because plaintiff was no longer in custody (doc. 39). Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address. Defendants filed a notice documenting their attempts to locate plaintiff and provide him a copy of their motion (doc. 40). Their review of DOC records indicated that plaintiff was released from prison on September 21, 2010, but we have still not heard from him. The docket indicates that we last heard from plaintiff on December 4, 2009. Yet LRCiv 83.3(d) requires unrepresented incarcerated persons to file a notice of change of address with the clerk within 7 days after the effective date of the change. We conclude that plaintiff has abandoned his claim. He has simply failed to prosecute this action. All of the factors under Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. counsel in favor of a dismissal with prejudice. The public has an interest in the resolution of litigation, on the
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
merits, if possible. The court has an interest in managing its docket. The defendants have been subjected to two years of litigationthey should not have to be subjected to that ordeal and cost again. There are no less drastic alternativesa dismissal without prejudice fails to compensate the defendants for their ordeal and subjects them to the risk of double litigation. They have filed and served a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff had an obligation to respond. See Rule 56(e), Fed. R. Civ. P. LRCiv 56.1(b). LRCiv 7.2(i). This case is too mature to dismiss without prejudice. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the reference to the magistrate judge is withdrawn, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under Rule 41(b) for lack of prosecution, and defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED on grounds of mootness. (Doc. 35). DATED this 22nd day of March, 2011.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?