Farias #128268 v. NaphCare 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
Johnny Rene Farias,
Plaintiff,
v.
NaphCare, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-02836-PHX-KML (MTM)
ORDER
TO THE HONORABLE KRISSA M. LANHAM, 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
Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe, and the time for doing so has expired. Accordingly,
the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s claims against the Doe Defendants be dismissed
without prejudice under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
II. Background
On August 7, 2025, Plaintiff Johnny Rene Farias, who is confined in the Arizona
State Prison Complex-Lewis, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 (Doc. 1). In its screening Order, the Court ordered Defendant NaphCare to answer
the Complaint, gave Plaintiff an opportunity to discover Defendants John and Jane Doe’s
actual names and file a notice of substitution, and dismissed Defendant Shinn without
Case 2:25-cv-02836-KML-MTM Document 20 Filed 02/17/26 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
prejudice. As to the Doe Defendants, the Court stated, “[w]ithin 120 days from the filing
date of this Order, Plaintiff must file a ‘Notice of Substitution,’ substituting Defendants
John Doe and Jane Doe’s actual name. The Court may dismiss without prejudice
Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe if Plaintiff fails to timely file a notice of substitution,
unless Plaintiff seeks and is granted an extension of time.” (Doc. 7.)
The record reflecting that Plaintiff failed to file a “Notice of Substitution”
substituting the Doe Defendants’ actual names, and the time for doing so having expired,
the Court issued an Order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be
dismissed as to the Doe Defendants for failure comply with the Court’s Order and provide
their actual names. Plaintiff then filed a request for an extension of time. (Doc. 15.) The
Court granted the motion on January 5, 2026, stating, in pertinent part, “[i]f Plaintiff fails
to file a notice of substitution within 30 days from the date of this Order, the Court may
dismiss without prejudice the Doe Defendants.” (Doc. 16.)
To date, however, Plaintiff has failed to file a Notice of Substitution and the time
for doing so has expired.
III. Discussion
Plaintiff’s action against the Doe Defendants 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.
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
Case 2:25-cv-02836-KML-MTM Document 20 Filed 02/17/26 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
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 the Doe
Defendants. Plaintiff’s failure to file a Notice of Substitution providing the actual identities
of these Defendants 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
granted Plaintiff an extension of time to comply. Plaintiff has failed to do so.
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 the Doe Defendants pursuant
to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed
without prejudice as to the Doe Defendants pursuant to 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
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
Case 2:25-cv-02836-KML-MTM Document 20 Filed 02/17/26 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
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 13th day of February, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-02836-KML-MTM Document 20 Filed 02/17/26 Page 4 of 4