Henry v. Universal Technical Institute et al

Filing 68

ORDER GRANTING defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 65 ). This dismissal is without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of this order to file and serve his amended complaint on all parties in compliance with LRCiv 15.1. Otherwise the Clerk shall enter judgment of dismissal with prejudice. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 3/8/2012. (KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Universal Technical Institute; Kimberly)
McWaters; Mike White; Adrian Cordova;)
Mike Romano; Ken Golaszewski; Maria)
Walters; Harvey Davis; Heather Gonzales;)
Bernie Candeleria; Markia Baker; Karen)
Mourad; Kathy Bochenski; Tom Riggs;)
)
Karen McWaters,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Tami E. Henry,

CV 11-01773-PHX-FJM
ORDER

18
19

The court has before it defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 65), plaintiff’s response

20

(doc. 66), and defendants’ reply (doc. 67).1 Plaintiff filed this action in September 2011

21

alleging discrimination, retaliation, and conspiracies arising from plaintiff's studies at

22

Universal Technical Institute.

23

In an effort to clear up confusion on the docket as to which of plaintiff’s multiple

24

filings was the operative pleading, on December 28, 2011 we granted plaintiff's second

25

motion to amend his complaint (doc. 51). We instructed plaintiff to comply with LRCiv

26
27
28

1

The motion is brought by defendants Universal Technical Institute, McWaters, Riggs,
Cordova, Romano, Walters, Gonzalez, Candeleria, Baker, Mourad, and Bochenski. They
allege that they are the only defendants who have appeared in this action to date.

1

15.1, and ordered that defendants answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint

2

within ten days of being served.

3

Defendants now move to dismiss this action in its entirety. They argue that plaintiff

4

failed to comply with our December 28, 2011 order because he neither filed nor served his

5

amended complaint within fourteen days. Plaintiff acknowledges his failure to comply with

6

LRCiv 15.1, but asks for an additional chance. Our order reminded plaintiff that regardless

7

of his pro se status, he is bound to follow all federal and local rules of civil procedure. See

8

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff has not done so, which continues

9

to cause both confusion and delay in these proceedings.

10

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 65). This

11

dismissal is without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of this

12

order to file and serve his amended complaint on all parties in compliance with LRCiv 15.1.2

13

Otherwise the Clerk shall enter judgment of dismissal with prejudice.
DATED this 8th day of March, 2012.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The proposed amended complaint is attached to plaintiff’s motion to amend (doc. 47,

ex. 1).
-2-