Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-03219/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-03219-0/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

JL

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alexis Jean Mertens,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-24-03219-PHX-JAT (MTM)

ORDER

On November 18, 2024, Plaintiff Alexis Jean Mertens, who was then confined in a 

Maricopa County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). That same 

day, the Clerk of Court mailed Plaintiff a Notice of Assignment at her address of record. 

On December 4, 2024, the mail was returned as undeliverable because Plaintiff is no longer 

in custody. Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address or otherwise informed the 

Court of her whereabouts. 

Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. Fid. Phila. Tr. Co. v. Pioche 

Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). In this regard, it is the duty of a selfrepresented plaintiff to keep the Court apprised of 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 [her] mailing address.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 

Case 2:24-cv-03219-JAT--MTM Document 6 Filed 12/20/24 Page 1 of 3
- 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

(9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court informed of her new address 

constitutes a failure to prosecute.

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “if the plaintiff 

fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, 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 on its own for failure to prosecute, although the language of Rule 

41(b) appears to require a motion from a party. Moreover, in appropriate circumstances, 

the Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute without notice or a 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. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990).

The first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiff’s failure to 

keep the Court informed of her 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.

. . . .

Case 2:24-cv-03219-JAT--MTM Document 6 Filed 12/20/24 Page 2 of 3
- 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

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.” The Court finds a dismissal with 

prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh and, therefore, will dismiss the Complaint and this 

action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as moot.

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied as 

moot.

(2) The Complaint (Doc. 1) and this case are dismissed without prejudice 

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute, and 

the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

Dated this 20th day of December, 2024.

Case 2:24-cv-03219-JAT--MTM Document 6 Filed 12/20/24 Page 3 of 3