SA Recycling LLC v. HD Recycling #3 LLC

Filing 20

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in conformance with the Court's Order (Doc. 18 ), entered on July 14, 2015. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 08/10/2015. (REK)

Download PDF
1 ASH 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 United States of America, 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 No. CV 15-1480-PHX-DGC (JZB) CR 12-1335-PHX-DGC Marlon Moore, ORDER 13 Defendant/Movant. 14 15 Movant Marlon Moore, who is confined in the Federal Correctional Institution in 16 Phoenix, Arizona, has filed a pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set 17 Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. The Court will call for an 18 answer to the § 2255 Motion. 19 I. Procedural History After a trial by jury, Movant was found guilty of possession with intent to 20 21 distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D). 22 September 3, 2013, the Court sentenced Movant to a 46-month term of imprisonment 23 followed by three years on supervised release. 24 II. counsel. The Court will require a response to the § 2255 Motion. 27 28 Section 2255 Motion In the § 2255 Motion, Movant alleges two counts of ineffective assistance of 25 26 On .... TERMPSREF 1 III. Warnings 2 A. 3 If Movant’s address changes, Movant must file and serve a notice of a change of 4 address in accordance with Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Movant 5 must not include a motion for other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to 6 comply may result in dismissal of this action. Address Changes 7 B. 8 Movant must serve Respondent, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a 9 copy of every document that Movant files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include 10 a certificate stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, 11 Movant must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. LRCiv 5.4. 12 Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Movant. Copies 13 C. 14 If Movant fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including 15 these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. 16 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action 17 for failure to comply with any order of the Court). 18 IT IS ORDERED: 19 (1) Possible Dismissal The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the § 2255 Motion (Doc. 1 in 20 CV 15-1480-PHX-DGC (JZB)), the Memorandum in Support (Doc. 2), and this Order on 21 the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona. 22 23 24 (2) The parties and the Clerk of Court must file all documents related to the § 2255 Motion in the civil case. (3) The United States Attorney for the District of Arizona has 60 days from the 25 date of service within which to answer the § 2255 Motion. The United States Attorney 26 may file an answer limited to relevant affirmative defenses, including but not limited to, 27 statute of limitations, procedural bar, or non-retroactivity. If the answer is limited to 28 affirmative defenses, only those portions of the record relevant to those defenses need be -2TERMPSREF 1 attached to the answer. Failure to set forth an affirmative defense in an answer may be 2 treated as a waiver of the defense. Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 209-11 (2006). If 3 not limited to affirmative defenses, the answer must fully comply with all of the 4 requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases. 5 6 7 (4) Movant may file a reply within 30 days from the date of service of the answer to the § 2255 Motion. (5) The matter is referred to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle pursuant to Rules 8 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and a report 9 and recommendation. Dated this 10th day of August, 2015. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3TERMPSREF

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?