THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24

Not for Publication Rule 28, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure

MEMORANDUM DECISION

ESPINOSA, Judge.

¶ 1 Marshall Martinez appeals from the dismissal of his retaliation claim against Corrections Corporation of America and several prison officials. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

Factual Background and Procedural History

¶ 2 Martinez is incarcerated at the privately owned Saguaro Correctional Center in Eloy, Arizona.1 In February of 2011, he filed an action against the prison's owner, Corrections Corporation of America, and several prison officials (collectively, "CCA") alleging, inter alia, that they had threatened his life and violated his constitutional rights in retaliation for his having previously filed a separate civil complaint against them. After his action was filed, Martinez requested an "emergency preliminary injunction order," alleging it was needed to prevent CCA from retaliating against him for exercising his right to petition the court. The trial court denied this motion and, noting Martinez's difficulties in serving any of the named defendants, sent a courtesy copy of the motion and order to CCA's former counsel and directed that Martinez complete service of process on or before June 15, 2011. The court granted Martinez's subsequent request for additional time to complete service, but CCA ultimately waived service. In October, Martinez requested a permanent injunction against CCA's alleged retaliation, which also was denied. In its ruling, the court instructed Martinez to familiarize himself and comply with the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.

¶ 3 Martinez did not serve written discovery or take depositions from October 2011 to May 2012. He did sign a Joint Alternative Dispute Resolution Statement, filed in February 2012 and on June 13, 2012, filed a "Notice for Temporary Restraining Order." On June 20, the trial court issued an order summarily denying Martinez's "Notice for Temporary Restraining Order" because he had failed to specify the relief he was requesting. The court further ordered the case be placed on the inactive calendar and set it for dismissal pursuant to Rule 38.1, Ariz. R. Civ. P., on August 27.

¶ 4 On July 11, Martinez filed an objection to dismissal and requested a hearing regarding his sentence, which he contended was unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion on August 14, due to Martinez's failure to make any "cognizable legal argument" and attaching "irrelevant legal rulings and memoranda from Hawaii." On August 27, the court dismissed Martinez's complaint for failure to prosecute, in accordance with Rule 38.1(d). We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(3).2

Discussion

¶ 5 Martinez asserts the dismissal of his complaint should be set aside, arguing he was unable to read a portion of Rule 38.1 due to his "being legally blind,"3 Rule 38.1 should not apply because it is "unreasonable" and "bias[ed]," and because he is self-represented. We will not disturb a dismissal for failure to prosecute absent an abuse of discretion. See BCAZ Corp. v. Helgoe, 194 Ariz. 11, ¶ 13, 976 P.2d 260, 263 (App. 1998) (reviewing dismissal under former Rule V(e)(2), Ariz. Super. Ct. Unif. R. Prac.); see also Ariz. R. Civ. P. 38.1 2000 bar committee note (Rule 38.1 incorporates provisions of former Rule V(e)(2)).

¶ 6 Martinez, who is "held to the same familiarity with required procedures . . . as would be attributed to a qualified member of the bar," despite his pro se status, does not assert he failed to receive notice of the dismissal. Copper State Bank v. Saggio, 139 Ariz. 438, 441, 679 P.2d 84, 87 (App. 1983). Neither does he claim he complied with Rule 38.1 by filing a Motion to Set and Certificate of Readiness or motion for additional time. See BCAZ Corp., 194 Ariz. 11, ¶ 28, 976 P.2d at 266 (although dismissal not justified when party complies with rule, lack of vigorous pursuit of case may foreclose relief from dismissal). Finally, Martinez cites no legal authority to support his arguments. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(6). We generally disregard unsupported arguments. Cullum v. Cullum, 215 Ariz. 352, n.5, 160 P.3d 231, 234 n.5 (App. 2007). Accordingly, Martinez has not demonstrated the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint.

Disposition

¶ 7 For the reasons stated above, the dismissal of Martinez's complaint is affirmed.

GARYE L. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge, VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge, concurring.