Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02234/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02234-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

SRM

- 1 -

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Felix Lopez,

Plaintiff

-vsJoseph M. Arpaio,

Defendant(s)

CV-06-2234-PHX-SMM (JI)

ORDER

Plaintiff filed a pro se Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September

18, 2006 (#1). In the Notice of Assignment (#2) entered on September 18, 2006, and mailed to

Plaintiff on September 19, 2006, Plaintiff was warned he must file a Notice of Change of Address

if his address changes and that failure to comply would result in his case being dismissed. It is

assumed this Notice was received by Plaintiff as it was not returned as undeliverable. However,

correspondence from the Court was returned as undeliverable with the notation that it was not able

to be forwarded (#5). Plaintiff has not filed a change of address.

Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co. v.

Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). In this regard, it is the duty of

a plaintiff who has filed a pro se action to keep the Court apprised of his or her current address and

to comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. This Court does not have an affirmative

obligation to locate Plaintiff. "A party, not the district court, bears the burden of keeping the court

apprised of any changes in his mailing address." Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir.

1988). Plaintiff's failure to keep the Court informed of his new address constitutes failure to

prosecute.

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[f]or failure of the plaintiff

to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal

of an action." In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962), the Supreme Court

Case 2:06-cv-02234-SMM-JRI Document 6 Filed 11/03/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

recognized that a federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure

to prosecute, even though the language of Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

appears to require a motion from a party. Moreover, in appropriate circumstances, the Court may

dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute even without notice or hearing. 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 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, 856 F.2d at 1440 (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. Plaintiff's failure to

keep the Court informed of his address prevents the case from proceeding 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. Without Plaintiff's current address, however,

certain alternatives are bound to be futile. Here, as in Carey, "[a]n order to show cause why

dismissal is not warranted or an order imposing sanctions would only find itself taking a round trip

tour through the United States mail." 856 F.2d at 1441.

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 court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies." In the instant case, the Court finds

that a dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh. The Complaint and this action will

therefore be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:06-cv-02234-SMM-JRI Document 6 Filed 11/03/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure this action is dismissed without prejudice and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 2nd day of November, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-02234-SMM-JRI Document 6 Filed 11/03/06 Page 3 of 3