Free Motion for Ruling - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

John T. Masterson, Bar #007447 Jennifer L. Holsman, Bar #022787 J ONES, S KELTON & H OCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: (602) 263-7310 Facsimile: (602) 651-7507 E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Rogers and Barr IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 10 Max Albert Raya, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Defendants Barr and Rogers, through counsel, and pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(i) and F ED. R. C IV. P ROC. 41(b), request summary disposition of their previously filed Motion to Dismiss based on the arguments set fourth in the motion and the absence of any response by Plaintiff. Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on August 19, 2005. Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was due on or about September 5, 2005. Plaintiff did not respond. Defendants filed their first Request for Summary Disposition on September 12, 2005. Plaintiff again did not respond. Subsequently, on September 15, 2005, the Court entered an Order which stated that "Plaintiff shall have until 10/5/2005 to file a Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; Defendants shall have Case 2:04-cv-00092-NVW Document 38 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 1 of 3 Jeremy Barr, Richard Rogers, Joseph M. Arpaio, Maricopa County, Board of Supervisors, Phoenix Police Department, et al., Defendants. DEFENDANTS' SECOND REQUEST FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION NO. 04-92-PHX-FJM (JI)

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

until 10/15/2005 to file any Reply." To date, Plaintiff has still failed to respond to Defendants' motion.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(i), a Plaintiff's failure to respond to a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion without further notice. See also, Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652-53 (9 th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). Thus, Plaintiff's failure to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss must be treated as silent acquiescence to the granting of Defendants' motion. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that their Motion to Dismiss be granted based on Plaintiff's non-compliance with Court orders, the Rule of Civil Procedure, and for failure to file a timely responsive pleading. Respectfully submitted this 13 th day of October, 2005.

J ONES, S KELTON & H OCHULI, P.L.C.

By s/Jennifer L. Holsman John T. Masterson Jennifer L. Holsman 2901 North Central Avenue Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Defendants Rogers and Barr

2 Case 2:04-cv-00092-NVW Document 38 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Electronically filed this 13th day of October 2005. COPY of the foregoing mailed even date to: Max Raya #185879 A RIZONA S TATE P RISON C OMPLEX - F LORENCE Post Office Box 8200 Florence, Arizona 85232 Plaintiff Pro Se s/ Kamika A. Brown

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1540789_1

3 Document 38 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00092-NVW