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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Max Albert Raya, Plaintiff, vs. Jamie Barr, et al.,

13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:04-cv-00092-NVW

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

CV 04-092 PHX NVW (ECV) ORDER

Before the court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. #29) and Defendants' First and Second Requests for Summary Disposition (docs. #34, 38). By order of Magistrate Judge Voss entered September 15, 2005 (doc. #35), plaintiff was given until October 5, 2005, to file a response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and was further advised of the consequences of failing to file a response. That time has expired, and no response has been filed. Pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i), plaintiff's failure to file a timely response "may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the court may dispose of the motion summarily." The court nevertheless has considered the Motion to Dismiss on its merits and finds it to be well taken. The excessive force claim which plaintiff alleges against the defendants would implicate the validity of his conviction and is therefore premature under Humphrey v. Heck, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

Document 39

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 1 of 2

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

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED withdrawing the reference of this case from Magistrate Judge Voss. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motions for Summary Disposition (docs. #34 and 38) are granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. #29) is granted. The clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this action without prejudice and shall terminate this action. DATED this 14th day of October, 2005.

-2Case 2:04-cv-00092-NVW Document 39 Filed 10/17/2005 Page 2 of 2