Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00379/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00379-0/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 

MH 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Joseph Carlton Holmes, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, 

Defendant. 

No. CV 14-0379-PHX-DGC (BSB) 

ORDER 

On February 26, 2014, Plaintiff Joseph Carlton Holmes, who was then confined in 

the Maricopa County Fourth Avenue 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. On March 

21, 2014, the Court denied the Application to Proceed and gave Plaintiff 30 days in 

which to either pay the $400.00 filing and administrative fees or file a complete in forma 

pauperis application. On March 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed an “Application for Deferral or 

Waiver of Court Fees And/Or Costs” that was denied in an Order dated June 11, 2014. 

Plaintiff was again granted leave to pay the required fees or file a complete in forma 

pauperis application, and on September 22, 2014, he filed another Application to Proceed 

(Doc. 17). 

On November 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Issue Summons (Doc. 19) in 

which he indicates that he was released from jail on November 20, 2014. Plaintiff has 

not filed a Notice of Change of Address or provided the Court with a mailing address 

where service can be effected. 

Case 2:14-cv-00379-DGC--BSB Document 20 Filed 12/16/14 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 

Rule 3.4 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 at 2.) In addition, this Court’s Orders of March 

21, June 11, and September 12 each warned Plaintiff that a failure to file and serve a 

notice of a change of address could result in dismissal. 

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 

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 

Case 2:14-cv-00379-DGC--BSB Document 20 Filed 12/16/14 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 

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. Johnson, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990). 

The first and second factors favor dismissal, as Plaintiff’s failure to supply the 

Court with an address will prevent this case from proceeding. The potential prejudice to 

the Defendants is minimal, however, as they have yet to be served. The fourth factor, as 

always, weighs against dismissal. As for the availability of less drastic sanctions, certain 

alternatives are bound to be futile in the absence of a current mailing address for Plaintiff. 

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. 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 ORDERED that Plaintiff’s 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. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 

Dated this 16th day of December, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-00379-DGC--BSB Document 20 Filed 12/16/14 Page 3 of 3