Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00137/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00137-0/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

The website of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) does not show

Plaintiff as being in the current custody of the ADOC.

MDR

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Darrick Littlejohn, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-137-PHX-DGC (ECV)

ORDER

On January 19, 2007, Plaintiff Darrick Littlejohn, who was confined in the Maricopa

County Durango 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. 

I. Returned Mail

On January 19, 2007, the Court filed a Notice of Assignment, which assigned this

action to the undersigned Judge. On January 22, 2007, a copy of the Notice of Assignment

was mailed by the Clerk of Court to Plaintiff at his last known address at the Durango Jail.

On January 31, 2007, the Notice of Assignment was returned to the Court as

undeliverable because Plaintiff had been released. Plaintiff has failed to file a Notice of

Change of Address or notify the Court in any way of his whereabouts. Accordingly, the

Clerk of the Court has been unable to remail the copy of the Notice to Plaintiff.1

Case 2:07-cv-00137-DGC--ECV Document 4 Filed 03/19/07 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 -

Rule 3.4(a) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure 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 address may

result in the dismissal of your case.” (Information and Instructions for a Prisoner Filing Civil

Rights Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona at 2(H)).

II. Failure to Prosecute

Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. See Fidelity Philadelphia Trust

Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., 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 a 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 Company, 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 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.

Case 2:07-cv-00137-DGC--ECV Document 4 Filed 03/19/07 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 -

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). 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 was 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 therefore will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

IT IS ORDERED that the Complaint (Doc. #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 must enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 19th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00137-DGC--ECV Document 4 Filed 03/19/07 Page 3 of 3