Free Order on Motion to Dismiss Case/Lack of Prosecution - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Defendants, 11 12 13 Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution on August 9 , 2005, and 14 served Plaintiff by mail on that same date. On August 17, 2005, this Court issued an order 15 advising Plaintiff that his response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was due no later than 16 August 31, 2005. The Court further advised Plaintiff "that failure to respond to Defendants' 17 Motion to Dismiss by the deadline set forth in this order will result in the Court deeming 18 Defendants' motion as being unopposed and consented to by Plaintiff." As of this date, no 19 responsive memorandum has been filed. 20 A review of the file shows that the last document filed by Plaintiff was on December 21 3, 2003 when he filed a Notice of Change of Address. On February 25, 2004, the Magistrate 22 Judge filed his order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and ordered 23 the previously lodged Second Amended Complaint filed. He also ordered that the Clerk send 24 Plaintiff a service packet including both summons and request of waiver forms for 25 Defendants Carpena and Hampton and ordered Plaintiff to complete and return the service 26 packets to the Clerk within 20 days of the date of the filing of that order. Plaintiff has not 27 served the summons and complaint and has not returned the service packets sent to him on 28
Case 2:03-cv-01347-SRB Document 22 Filed 10/05/2005 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tekenni Hawk Montez, Plaintiff, v. Tempe Police Dept., et al.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORDER No. CIV-03-1347-PHX-SRB

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

March 8, 2004. On July 29, 2003 Plaintiff was warned that "if he fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, or any order of the Court entered in this matter, the action and Complaint will be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." This Court's August 17, 2005 order contained the same warning. None of the Court's orders have been returned by the Post Office. The Court assumes they were received by Plaintiff. The Court can only conclude that Plaintiff has abandoned his case and that it should be dismissed for lack of prosecution. IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. (doc. 20). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter Judgment of Dismissal. DATED this 4th day of October, 2005.

-2Case 2:03-cv-01347-SRB Document 22 Filed 10/05/2005 Page 2 of 2