Matthew A Kearns v. Doug Schuster

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: July 2, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-08039
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Matthew A Kearns, No. CV-26-08039-PCT-DWL (CDB)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Doug Schuster,

13 Defendant. 14 15 On February 4, 2026, Plaintiff (who is proceeding pro se) filed a complaint in 16 Mohave County Superior Court, naming Doug Schuster (“Defendant”) as the sole 17 defendant. (Doc. 1-3 at 3-6.) On March 2, 2026, Defendant timely removed this action 18 to federal court. (Doc. 1.) That same day, the Clerk’s office issued a “Notice to Pro-Se 19 Non-Prisoner Parties Representing Themselves.” (Doc. 3.) Among other things, the 20 notice advised Plaintiff that “[i]f you DO NOT respond to a motion within the 21 requirements of the local Rules, the Court may assume consent to the denial or granting 22 of the motion and may dispose of the motion summarily under Local Rule of Civil 23 Procedure 7.2(i).” (Id. at 6.) 24 On May 27, 2026, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. 25 6.) The next day, Magistrate Judge Bibles issued an order giving Plaintiff 30 days to 26 respond and again warning Plaintiff that, under LRCiv 7.2(i), a failure to respond may be 27 deemed consent to the granting of the motion. (Doc. 7.) 28 Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss has expired and Plaintiff 1 did not file a response. As noted, under LRCiv 7.2(i), “if [an] unrepresented party . . . 2 does not serve and file the required answering memoranda, . . . such non-compliance may 3 be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of 4 the motion summarily.” Plaintiff has been repeatedly advised of this rule and of the 5 consequences of not responding. 6 “Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal . . . 7 [but] [b]efore dismissing the action, the district court is required to weigh several factors: 8 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 9 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 10 favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 11 sanctions.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). See also Wystrach v. 12 Ciachurski, 267 F. App’x 606, 607-08 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The court also did not abuse its 13 discretion in applying its local rule summarily to grant defendants’ motion to dismiss 14 because plaintiffs failed timely to respond. Local Rule 7.2(i) of the Rules of Practice of 15 the United States District Court for the District of Arizona authorizes a court to dispose 16 summarily of a motion, if the non-moving party fails to serve and file the required 17 answering memorandum.”). The Court has considered the relevant factors and concludes 18 they support dismissal without prejudice under these circumstances, where Plaintiff’s 19 non-compliance has thwarted the public’s interest in expedited resolution of litigation and 20 interfered with the Court’s ability to manage its docket and Defendant faces a risk of 21 prejudice from further delay. These considerations outweigh the public policy favoring 22 disposition of cases on their merits, and a without-prejudice dismissal is the only feasible 23 alternative to a with-prejudice dismissal. 24 … 25 … 26 … 27 … 28 … 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED that: 3 1. The reference to the magistrate judge is withdrawn as to Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 6), and the motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) is summarily granted. 5 2. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action. 6 Dated this 2nd day of July, 2026. 7 8 Lm a 9 f t _o—— Dominic W. Lanza 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-