Thompson v. Arizona, State of et al

Filing 14

ORDER - Plaintiff shall have until July 16, 2010 to file a response to each motion to dismiss (Dkt. 10 , 13 ). No further extensions will be granted. The Clerk is directed to mail to Plaintiff a copy of each motion to dismiss. Plaintiff is warned that the Court will summarily grant the motions to dismissif Plaintiff fails to comply with this order. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/24/10. (LAD)

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. ) The State of Arizona; Coconino County; ) ) City of Flagstaff; Superior Court of Coconino County; and Deborah Young, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) Grace P. Thompson,

No. CV-10-8001-PCT-DGC ORDER

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging that the administration of a process server examination violated state and federal law and Plaintiff's civil rights. Dkt. #1. Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint (Dkt. #9). Dkt. ##10, 13. 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 July 16, 2010 to file a response to each motion to dismiss. 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) ("Although pro se, [plaintiff] is expected to abide by the rules of the court in which he

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

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 she does not file responses to Defendants' motions to dismiss (Dkt. ##10, 13) by July16, 2010, the Court will summarily grant the motions. Plaintiff is further advised that if she fails to prosecute this action, or if she 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 July 16, 2010 to file a response to each motion to dismiss (Dkt. ##10, 13). No further extensions will be granted. 2. 3. The Clerk is directed to mail to Plaintiff a copy of each motion to dismiss. Plaintiff is warned that the Court will summarily grant the motions to dismiss if Plaintiff fails to comply with this order. DATED this 24th day of June, 2010.

-2-