Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02699/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02699-0/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 LMH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas Price, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2699-PHX-DGC (HCE)

ORDER

Plaintiff, a count y jail inmate at the Tent City Jail in Phoenix, Arizona, filed a pro se

Comp laint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court will dismiss the action without

prejudice for failure to prosecute.

On September 6, 2005, the Court received Plaintiff’s Complaint for filing. The same

day, the Court issued a Notice of Assignment (Dkt. #2). About a week later, on

September 15, the Notice of Assignment was returned in the mail (Dkt. #3). Plaintiff has not

provided the Court with his present address, and more than one month has elapsed since

he filed his Complaint.

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 3.4(a) requires that a prisoner-litigant comply with the

instructions attached to the court-approved complaint form. Those instruct ions 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

Case 2:05-cv-02699-DGC--HCE Document 4 Filed 11/02/05 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Comp laint at 2, ¶ H. The Court has no affirmative obligation to locate Plaintiff. “A party,

not the district court, bears t he burden of keeping the court apprised of any changes in his

mailing address.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). If the

Court were to show cause Plaintiff why dismissal were not warranted, the Order “would

only find itself taking a round trip tour through the United States mail.” Id. The Court is

also not required to hold t he mat t er in abeyance. “It would be absurd to require the district

court t o hold a case in abeyance indefinitely just because it is unable, through t he

plaintiff’s own fault, to contact the plaintiff to determine if his reasons for not prosecuting

his lawsuit are reasonable or not.” Id. 

Plaintiff filed his action and his address changed within the same week. He has not

notified the Court of his new address, and more than sufficient t ime has elapsed for him to

submit his change of address. He was warned in the instructions to the Complaint that he

must keep the Court ap p rised of his current address. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply

with the rules and thereby has failed to prosecute this action, see FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b), the

Court will dismiss his action without prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Complaint and this action are dismissed

without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 1st day of November, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-02699-DGC--HCE Document 4 Filed 11/02/05 Page 2 of 2