Hudnall v. State

Full title: Larry Corbett Hudnall, Plaintiff, v. State of Arizona, et al, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Nov 21, 2005

CIV 05-259 PHX EHC (VAM) (D. Ariz. Nov. 21, 2005)

Opinion

CIV 05-259 PHX EHC (VAM).

November 21, 2005

ORDER

VIRGINIA MATHIS, Magistrate Judge

By Order filed August 1, 2005 (Doc. 10), plaintiff was given until August 29, 2005 to file a response to defendant Maricopa County's Motion to Dismiss. A review of the docket indicates that plaintiff has not filed a response.

Plaintiff is cautioned that it is his obligation to timely respond to all motions. The failure of plaintiff to respond to defendant's Motion to Dismiss may in the discretion of the Court be deemed a consent to the granting of that Motion without further notice, and judgment may be entered dismissing the complaint and action with prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 1.10(i). See Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam).

Plaintiff will be given one more opportunity to respond to defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff file a response to defendant's Motion to Dismiss no later than December 5, 2005 or risk dismissal of this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant may file a reply by December 19, 2005.