Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02416/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02416-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Arthur Ramos, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 06-2416 PHX MHM (VAM)

)

Joseph Arpaio, ) O R D E R

)

 Defendant. )

Plaintiff filed a pro se Civil Rights Complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 12, 2006. (Doc. 1). In the

Notice of Assignment entered and mailed to Plaintiff on October

12, 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. (Doc. 2). It is

assumed this Notice was received by Plaintiff as it was not

returned as undeliverable. However, the Court Orders filed

October 27, 2006 (Docs. 3 and 4) were returned as undeliverable

with the notation that Plaintiff was "not in custody." (Doc.

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

Case 2:06-cv-02416-MHM-VAM Document 6 Filed 12/11/06 Page 1 of 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 2

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

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

Case 2:06-cv-02416-MHM-VAM Document 6 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 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 3

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. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to Rules 4(m) and

Case 2:06-cv-02416-MHM-VAM Document 6 Filed 12/11/06 Page 3 of 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 4

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 7th day of December, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-02416-MHM-VAM Document 6 Filed 12/11/06 Page 4 of 4