Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00673/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00673-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Andre Daniels,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-09-673-PHX-JAT (MHB)

ORDER

Plaintiff Andre Daniels, who is confined in the Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail,

has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. #1). The Court

screened the Complaint in an Order filed on April 17, 2009. (Doc. #4.) In the screening

Order, the Court ordered Plaintiff to complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of

the Court within 20 days, after which the U.S. Marshal Service would notify the Defendant

and effect service. (Doc. #4.) Additionally, Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to timely

comply with the provisions set forth in the screening Order, the action would be dismissed

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. #4.)

The deadline for returning the completed service packet passed, and Plaintiff neither

returned the completed service packet to the Court nor otherwise effected service on

Defendant. Accordingly, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause on or before June 20,

2009, why this matter should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure for failure to comply with the Court’s Order. (Doc. #6.) Plaintiff has not

Case 2:09-cv-00673-JAT Document 7 Filed 07/15/09 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 -

responded to the order to show cause or communicated with the Court. The Court, therefore,

will determine whether dismissal is appropriate.

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

Co. v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). 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.

See 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 v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988)

(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 respond to Court orders 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. The Court has already ordered

Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed. Plaintiff has not responded.

Case 2:09-cv-00673-JAT Document 7 Filed 07/15/09 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 -

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. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED withdrawing the reference to the Magistrate Judge as to this entire

case; and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure this action is dismissed without prejudice and the Clerk of the Court shall

enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 14th day of July, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00673-JAT Document 7 Filed 07/15/09 Page 3 of 3