Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01687/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01687-1/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

Pedro Membrillo-Cid,

Plaintiff

-vsJoseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants

CV-06-1687-PHX-MHM (JI)

ORDER

Failure to File Notice of Change of Address - On January 3, 2008, mail from the

Clerk of the Court to Plaintiff was returned undeliverable, reflecting that Plaintiff was “no

longer in custody” (#46). Plaintiff had not filed a notice of change of address. In the Notice

of Assignment issued July 6, 2006 (#2), Plaintiff was warned that dismissal could result from

failure to file a notice of change of address. In an Order entered August 9, 2006 (#3), Plaintiff

was cautioned that failure to immediately file a notice of change of address "may result in

the dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure."

Previous Order to Show Cause - The Court noted that Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment, filed December 12, 2007 (#43), lists an address for Plaintiff at an

institution in Oklahoma. This corresponds with information provided on the Arizona

Department of Corrections website. Consequently, on January 25, 2008, Magistrate Judge

Irwin issued an order to show cause (#47), giving Plaintiff 15 days to Plaintiff either (1)

show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or (2) file

a notice of change of address with the court, reflecting Plaintiff's current address. That order

directed service on Plaintiff at his address of record, and at the Oklahoma address. The copy

of that order forwarded to the address of record was forwarded to Oklahoma, but was

returned undeliverable. (#48)

Case 2:06-cv-01687-MHM-JRI Document 49 Filed 03/03/08 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 -

Failure to Prosecute - 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 "[i]f the plaintiff fails to

prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the

action." 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, 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

Case 2:06-cv-01687-MHM-JRI Document 49 Filed 03/03/08 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 -

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. 

Motion for Summary Judgment - In the meantime, Plaintiff has failed to respond

to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#43). Plaintiff was instructed to file that

response by February 14, 2008. (Order 12/18/07, #45.)

IT IS THEREFORE 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.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed

December 12, 2007 (#43) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court transmit a copy of this

Order to Plaintiff’s address of record and to Plaintiff at: Diamondback Correctional Facility,

Rural Route 2, Box 336, Watonga, Oklahoma 73772. 

DATED this 29th day of February, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01687-MHM-JRI Document 49 Filed 03/03/08 Page 3 of 3