Hall v. Lasalle Corrections West LLC et al

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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Marco Wayne Hall,
Plaintiff,
v.
LaSalle Corrections West, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
NO. CV-24-02107-PHX-SMM (MTM)
ORDER
TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. McNAMEE, SENIOR UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE:
I. Summary of Conclusion
This matter is before the Court on its own review. Plaintiff failed to comply with the
Court’s Order and file a “Notice of Substitution” providing the actual names of the
Defendants Does 1-6, and the time for doing so has expired. Accordingly, the Court will
recommend that Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants be dismissed without prejudice
under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
II. Background
Self-represented Plaintiff Marco Wayne Hall, who is proceeding in forma pauperis
and confined in the Federal Correctional Institution-Butner, in Butner, North Carolina, filed
a civil rights Second Amended Complaint regarding events that took place while he was
confined in the San Luis Regional Detention Center in San Luis, Arizona. (Doc. 11.) On
August 21, 2025, the Court screened the matter and ordered Defendants to answer Counts
Case 2:24-cv-02107-SMM-MTM Document 37 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 4

- 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
Three of the Second Amended Complaint and dismissed the remaining claims without
prejudice. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff named several Doe Defendants in his complaint. In its
screening order, the Court also stated, “Plaintiff has 120 days from the filing date of this
Order in which to discover, by subpoena or otherwise, the identity of one or more of the
Defendants Does 1-6, and to file a ‘notice of substitution’ for one or more of the Doe
Defendants.” (Id.) Although counsel has filed a notice of appearance on behalf of every
Defendant – including the Doe Defendants – the Doe Defendants still remain anonymous
as Plaintiff has not filed a notice of substitution.1
Accordingly, on December 29, 2025, the Court issued an Order requiring Plaintiff to
show cause why this matter should not be dismissed as to the Doe Defendants for failure
comply with the Court’s Order and provide their actual names. (Doc. 31.) Plaintiff failed
to comply and the time for doing so has expired.
III. Discussion
Plaintiff’s action against the Defendants Does 1-6 may be dismissed under Rule
41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to comply with this Court’s
Orders. Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides “[i]f the plaintiff fails
to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move to dismiss the
action or any claim against it.” In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31
(1962), the Supreme Court recognized that a federal district court has the inherent power
to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute. Moreover, in appropriate
circumstances, the Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute even without
notice or hearing. See id. at 633.
1 On December 22, 2025, counsel for Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Defendants
Does 1-6. (Doc. 30.) In his Motion counsel states, in pertinent part, “[u]ndersigned counsel,
out of an abundance of caution, filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of the John Doe
Defendants #1-6, on October 13, 2025 (Doc. 15), in the event the identity of any John Doe
Defendant was ascertained by Plaintiff prior to undersigned counsel filing his Notice of
Appearance, and to assure no John Doe #1-6 Defendant was defaulted in this matter.” (Id.)
Case 2:24-cv-02107-SMM-MTM Document 37 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
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
In determining whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of the
case, the Court must weigh the following five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in
expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk
of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their
merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,
1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).
“The first two of these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the
fourth factor cuts against a default or dismissal sanction. Thus the key factors are prejudice
and availability of lesser sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnson, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir.
1990).
Here, the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case as to these
Defendants. Plaintiff’s failure to file a notice of substitution providing the actual identity
of Does 1-6 as directed, prevents the case from proceeding against them in the foreseeable
future. The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. The fifth factor requires the
Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative is available. The Court has already
ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed and Plaintiff has
not responded.
The Court finds that only one less drastic sanction is realistically available. Rule
41(b) provides that a dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as an adjudication upon the
merits “[u]nless the dismissal order states otherwise.” In the instant case, the Court finds
that a dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh. Therefore, the Court will
recommend dismissal of this action without prejudice as to Defendants Does 1-6 pursuant
to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 11)
be dismissed without prejudice as to Defendants Does 1-6 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of
Case 2:24-cv-02107-SMM-MTM Document 37 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
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
Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The
parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and
Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have 14 days
within which to file a response to the objections.
Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the
district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the
Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the
findings of fact in an order of judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
Dated this 14th day of January, 2026.
Case 2:24-cv-02107-SMM-MTM Document 37 Filed 01/14/26 Page 4 of 4