Lindsey v. Williams et al

Filing 49

ORDER Plaintiff shall have until 4/30/10 to file responses to Defendants' motions to dismiss 39 and 44 . Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 4/14/10. (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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Peter Michael Williams; Emilie Diane ) ) Halladay; Ljubomir Peter Atanasoff; John Robert Walston, Jr.; William Lee ) Morris, Jr.; and Stephanie A. Stromfors, ) ) ) Defendants. ) Mark Lewellyn Lindsey,

No. CV-09-1869-PHX-DGC ORDER

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against Defendants on September 9, 2009. Dkt. #1. On March 3, 2010, Defendants Peter Williams and Emilie Halladay filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Dkt. #31) for failure to state a claim to relief. Dkt. #39. Defendant Stephanie Stromfors filed a similar motion on March 8, 2010. Dkt. #44. Plaintiff has filed no response, and the time for doing so has expired. See LRCiv 7.2(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Plaintiff shall have until April 30, 2010 to file responses to the motions to dismiss (Dkt. ##39, 44). Plaintiff must become familiar with, and follow, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona ("Local Rules"). See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986) ("Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants."); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986) (pro se litigants "should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record"); Carter v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986)

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

("Although pro se, [plaintiff] is expected to abide by the rules of the court in which he litigates."). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available at the following Internet website: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/. A copy of the Court's Local Rules of Civil Procedure may be obtained from the Clerk's Office. Rule 7.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure provides that an unrepresented party's failure to respond to a motion "may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily." LRCiv 7.2(i). Plaintiff is advised that if he does not file responses to the motions to dismiss (Dkt. #39, 44) by April 30, 2010, the Court will summarily grant the motions. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to prosecute this action, or if he fails to comply with the rules or any Court order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff shall have until April 30, 2010 to file responses to Defendants' motions to dismiss (Dkt. ##39, 44). 2. Plaintiff is warned that the Court will summarily grant the motions to dismiss if Plaintiff fails to comply with this order. DATED this 14th day of April, 2010.

-2-