Jimenez v. Phoenix, City of

Filing 12

ORDER overruling the 11 Objections to the 9 Report and Recommendation. ORDERED adopting the 9 Report and Recommendation. ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff's 7 Motion for Discovery; denying Plaintiff's 10 Motion to Collect. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment dismissing the case. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 1/20/2015. (LFIG)

1
2
3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Marco Antonio Jimenez,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-14-02534-PHX-DKD

City of Phoenix, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

15

David K. Duncan, recommending that the Court dismiss this case on grounds that

16

Plaintiff has failed to comply with his November 21, 2014 Order and that the record

17

shows that Plaintiff cannot state a legal claim. (Doc. 9) Plaintiff filed an objection to the

18

Report and Recommendation called “Amended Complaint & Objections.” (Doc. 11) The

19

Report and Recommendation fully summarizes the facts and procedure of this case:

20

On November 21, 2014, the Court entered an Order which directed
the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and further advising that he
address the specific deficiencies which the Court had identified in that
Order.[1] Since November 21, 2014, Plaintiff has filed two documents

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The allegations in the Complaint were all related to a dismissed 1998 case in
which Plaintiff alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Doc. 6) The
Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of that case. (Id.) Magistrate Judge Duncan noted that
because “all matters related to Plaintiff’s claims of employment discrimination arising
from Plaintiff’s employment with the City which have been determined already,
[Plaintiff] may not seek to reopen that case absent extraordinary relief the grounds of
which have not been asserted.” (Id.) Magistrate Judge Duncan also noted that any
amended Complaint “would likely need to explain why Plaintiff’s claim for employment
discrimination occurring more than 14 years ago is not barred by the statutes of
limitations.” (Id.)

1

neither of which complies with that Order. First, Plaintiff filed on
December 2, 2014, a document with the title “Order by Plaintiff of Duty to
Discovery Rule 26.” This document appears to contain prayers for relief
and a request for a copy of a transcript for a November 22, 1999 court
proceeding. The second document has the title “RULES TO SHOW GOOD
CAUSE.” It appears to be 29 and a quarter pages of a reprinting of portions
of the United States Code and a reference, on its last page, to a statement in
court on November 22, 1999, in a case described as “CV-1945-PHX-EHC.”
Neither filing complies with the Court’s Order of November 21, 2014,
which required the filing of an amended complaint and informed Plaintiff
that he would need to demonstrate why a claim for employment
discrimination that occurred more than 14 years ago is not barred by the
statute of limitations.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

In the Court’s November 21, 2014 Order, the Court warned Plaintiff
that his failure to file an amended complaint to show cause why his
complaint should not be dismissed would likely result in the dismissal of
his new complaint. Plaintiff’s filings have not demonstrated such good
cause and thus this Court is required under the laws of the United States to
recommend to the Presiding District Judge of the Phoenix Division that
Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed.

10
11
12
13
14
15

(Doc. 9)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of

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

the record in this case and has fully considered Plaintiff’s “Amended Complaint &
Objections.” This filing consists substantially of a recitation of Arizona criminal statutes
that in no way can state a legal claim. His objections consist generally of incoherent
ramblings that inappropriately call into question the impartiality of judges in this district
and the federal judiciary. Plaintiff makes no attempt to address the deficiencies
Magistrate Judge Duncan identified in the Complaint and he also has not explained why
he did not comply with Magistrate Judge Duncan’s instruction for him to file an amended
Complaint. See Nelson v. Target Corp., No. CV-13-2519-PHX-LOA, 2014 WL 1384604,
at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 9, 2014) (“While complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, pro se litigants must
comply with all procedural and local rules.” (alteration incorporated) (citation omitted)).
///

-2-

1

Because Plaintiff has not identified any legal error in Magistrate Judge Duncan’s

2

analysis, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and dismisses this case.2

3
4

IT IS ORDERED overruling the objections to the Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 11).

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation (Doc.
9).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery
(Doc. 7).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Collect (Doc. 10).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment
dismissing the case.

12

Dated this 20th day of January, 2015.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2

28

After the Report and Recommendation was issued, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to
Collect.” (Doc. 10) This Motion appears to concern certain money Plaintiff claims he is
owed on some unspecified judgment he apparently received in his favor.
-3-