Free Order - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

`
2
3
4
5
6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9 Jason DeJesus,
10 Plaintiff,
ll vs. No. CV 03-2435-PHX~·MHM (VAM)
12 ORDER
13 Phoenix Police Department, et al.,
14 Defendants.
15 n
16
17 Plaintiff while confmed in the Madison Street Jail in Phoenix, Arizona, filed a pro
18 se complaint asserting violation of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court
19 entered an Order which permitted Plaintiff to proceed on Count I as to Defendant Kevin
20 Wilson. (Doc. 6). Pursuant to an Order entered by Magistrate Judge Mathis on February 14,
21 2005 (Doc. 12), the Clerk of Court sent Plaintiff a packet that included doctunents necessary
22 to effect service ofthe complaint. On March 23, 2005, Plaintiff tiled notice of a change of
23 address. (Doc. 13). On April 27, 2005, Magistrate Judge Mathis entered an order noting that
y 24 Plaintiff had not effected service of the complaint and directing Plaintiff to show cause
25 within twenty (20) dayswhy the·case should not be dismissed. (Doc. 14). Plaintiff was
26 warned that if he failed to comply with the Order the action would be dismissed. Plaintiff
27 has not responded to this Order.
28
Case 2:03-cv—O2435-I\/IHI\/I Document 17 Filed O7/O7/2005 Page 1 of 2

1 Rule 4 1 (b) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to dismiss an action
2 for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order. This
3 authority under Rule 4l(b) flows from the court's inherent power to control its docket and
4 prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases. Link v. Wabash R.R, Co,, 370 U.S.
5 626 (1962). The Court has considered the five factors set forth in Ferdik v. Bonzelgt, 963
6 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9"‘ Cir. 1992), and has determined that, notwithstanding the public
7 policy favoring the disposition of actions on their merits, the Court's need to manage its
8 docket and the public interest in the expeditious resolution of the litigation require dismissal
9 of this action. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's orders and has failed to effect
. 10 service of the complaint.
1 1 Accordingly,
12 IT IS ORDERED that the complaint and action are dismissed without prejudice.
13
14 DATED this Z°\§M’ day of June, 2005.
15
16 1 2 · "\ .
17 uia i3i11`§[?§ii1%i“1u
9 18 _
19
20
21
22
i 23
24 ‘
25
26 `
27
28
- 2 ..
ase 2:03-cv—O2435-I\/IHI\/I Document 17 Filed O7/O7/2005 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-02435-MHM

Document 17

Filed 07/07/2005

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-02435-MHM

Document 17

Filed 07/07/2005

Page 2 of 2