Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02654/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02654-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

Imarogbe B. Olutosin, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 05-2654 PHX JWS (VAM)

)

Captain Brown, et al., ) O R D E R

)

 Defendants. )

Plaintiff filed a pro se Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 31, 2005. (Doc. 1). In the Notice of

Assignment entered and mailed to Plaintiff on September 1, 2005,

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 and

plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on

October 26, 2005. (Doc. 4). However, the Court Order filed 

June 6, 2006 (Doc. 6) was returned as undeliverable with the

notation that Plaintiff was released from custody. (Doc. 7). 

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

Case 2:05-cv-02654-JWS-VAM Document 8 Filed 10/24/06 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

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 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

Case 2:05-cv-02654-JWS-VAM Document 8 Filed 10/24/06 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

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 Rule 41(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure this action is dismissed without 

Case 2:05-cv-02654-JWS-VAM Document 8 Filed 10/24/06 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

prejudice and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 24th day of October, 2006.

 /s/

 JOHN W. SEDWICK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02654-JWS-VAM Document 8 Filed 10/24/06 Page 4 of 4