Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-03001/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-03001-0/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

1

When Plaintiff filed the Complaint, he was confined in the Maricopa County Towers Jail

in Phoenix, Arizona ("Towers Jail").

- 1 -

WO RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Shawn Drummy, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-3001-PHX-EHC (DKD)

ORDER

On December 23, 2004, Shawn Drummy ("Plaintiff"), presently released, filed with

the Clerk of the Court a pro se Civil Rights Complaint By A Prisoner (Document #1)

("Complaint").1

 Plaintiff did not pay a filing fee, but he filed a certified Application To

Proceed In Forma Pauperis By A Prisoner Civil (Non-Habeas) ("Application To Proceed")

and an Inmate Account Statement ("Account Statement") with his Complaint. 

By Order filed July 22, 2005 (Document #6), Plaintiff's Application to Proceed was

granted and Plaintiff was obligated to pay the one hundred and fifty dollar ($150.00)

Case 2:04-cv-03001-EHC--DKD Document 10 Filed 10/07/05 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 website of the Maricopa County Sheriff does not show Plaintiff as being in the current

custody of the Maricopa Sheriff. Also, the website of the Arizona Department of Corrections

(ADOC) does not show Plaintiff as being in the current custody of the ADOC.

- 2 -

statutory filing fee for this action. Based on the average monthly deposits in Plaintiff’s

account for three (3) months immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint, an initial

partial filing fee of thirty-seven dollars and thirty-three cents ($37.33) was assessed.

The Order filed July 22, 2005 also dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice,

with leave to amend. Plaintiff was given thirty (30) days from the filing date of the Order

to file an amended complaint. To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's July

22, 2005 Order. 

By separate Order filed July 22, 2005 (Document #7), the Maricopa County Sheriff

or his designee was required to send to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee, and

thereafter, payments from Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account

exceeds ten dollars ($10.00), until the statutory filing fee of one hundred and fifty dollars

($150.00) was paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 

RETURNED MAIL

On July 22, 2005, the Clerk of the Court mailed copies of both of the Court's July 22,

2005 Orders (Document ##6 & 7) in separate envelopes to Plaintiff at his last known address

at the Durango Jail. On July 28, 2005, both envelopes were returned to the Clerk of the

Court with the notations “REL" and "NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE

TO FORWARD." Since then, Plaintiff has failed to file a Notice of Change of Address, or

to in any way notify the Court of his whereabouts. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court has

been unable to remail copies of the Orders to Plaintiff.2

Rule 3.4(a) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure ("LRCiv") requires that an

incarcerated litigant comply with the instructions attached to the Court-approved Complaint

form. Those instructions state: “You must immediately notify the clerk ... in writing of any

change in your mailing address. Failure to notify the court of any change in your mailing

Case 2:04-cv-03001-EHC--DKD Document 10 Filed 10/07/05 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 -

address may result in the dismissal of your case.” (Information and Instructions for a

Prisoner Filing Civil Rights Complaint at 2).

Also, in its Notice Of Assignment (Document #2) ("Notice"), the Court warned

Plaintiff that "[f]ailure to comply with the following rules will result in your document being

STRUCK and/or your case being DISMISSED." (Notice at 1). One of the rules listed was

that "[y]ou must file a Notice of Change of Address if your address changes." (Notice at 1).

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 appraised 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 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

Case 2:04-cv-03001-EHC--DKD Document 10 Filed 10/07/05 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 -

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. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Civil Rights Complaint By A Prisoner

(Document #1) and this action are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule

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

Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly. 

DATED this 5th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-03001-EHC--DKD Document 10 Filed 10/07/05 Page 4 of 4