Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02862/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02862-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

- 1 -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Paul G. Rojas,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et. al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2862-PHX-ROS (HCE)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

On September 19, 2005, Plaintiff, who was at that time incarcerated at the Lower

Buckeye Jail in Maricopa County, Arizona, filed the instant pro se action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983.

I. BACKGROUND

On March 2, 2006, the Court entered an order directing, inter alia, the Clerk of Court

to mail a service packet to Plaintiff and directing Plaintiff to return the completed service

packet to the Court within twenty days. The March 2, 2006 Order and service packet were

mailed on March 2, 2006 to Plaintiff at his last known address of record at the Lower

Buckeye Jail. On March 6, 2006, the envelope containing the March 2, 2006 Order and

service packet was returned to the Clerk of Court with the following notation: "Unable to

Forward." (Doc. No. 5) Through research, the Clerk of Court learned that Plaintiff was no

Case 2:05-cv-02862-ROS Document 8 Filed 08/16/06 Page 1 of 5
- 2 -

longer incarcerated at the Lower Buckeye Jail but that he was at the Arizona State Prison

Complex (hereinafter "ASPC"). (Id.) On March 6, 2006, the Clerk of Court mailed the

March 2, 2006 Order and service packet to Plaintiff at the ASPC address. (Id.) The Clerk

of Court also revised the docket to reflect Plaintiff's current address at the ASPC.

Local Rule Civil 3.4(a), Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District

of Arizona, 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 the Notice of Assignment, sent to Plaintiff on September 19, 2005, 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."

(Id.)

Additionally, the March 2, 2006 Order that was mailed to Plaintiff at the ASPC

warned Plaintiff that: "[a]t all times during the pendency of this action, Plaintiff shall

immediately advise the Court and the United States Marshal of any change of address and

its effective date. Such notice shall be captioned “NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.”

The notice shall contain only information pertaining to the change of address and its effective

date... Failure to file a Notice of Change of Address may result in the dismissal of the action

for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure."

(March 2, 2006 Order, p.5) The Court also required Plaintiff to return the completed service

packet within twenty days and warned Plaintiff that his failure to either obtain a waiver of

service or to otherwise effect service within 120 days of the filing date of the complaint or

within 60 days of the filing of the Order, whichever was later, may result in dismissal. (Id.

at p. 4) The Court also warned Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply with every provision

Case 2:05-cv-02862-ROS Document 8 Filed 08/16/06 Page 2 of 5
- 3 -

of the March 2, 2006 Order, or any order entered in this matter, will result in dismissal of this

action pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at p.3)

Plaintiff has not filed a Notice of Change of Address. Plaintiff has not returned the

service packet to the Court within the deadline nor has he requested an extension of that

deadline. Plaintiff has not obtained a waiver of service from Defendants nor has he served

Defendants with the Complaint and Summons within the Court-ordered deadline. Plaintiff

has not filed any other document notifying the that he intends to prosecute this action.

Plaintiff has filed no documents in this action since he filed his Complaint on September 19,

2005. Therefore, on June 29, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiff until July 21, 2006 to file a

brief showing good cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute

pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff was advised that his

failure to file such brief by the deadline would result in a recommendation to the District

Court to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41. The docket reflects that on June

30, 2006, the Court's June 29, 2006 Order To Show Cause was mailed to Plaintiff at his

current address of record at the ASPC. To date, Plaintiff has not filed the brief required by

the Court's June 29, 2006 Order.

II. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may dismiss

an action "[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order

of court." Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); see also Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. United States

Forest Service, 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) ("courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua

sponte"); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (same). 

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 comply with the Court’s orders in a timely

fashion. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissing action for failure

to keep court apprised of current address); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995) ("pro

Case 2:05-cv-02862-ROS Document 8 Filed 08/16/06 Page 3 of 5
- 4 -

se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure"); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.

1987)("[p]ro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other

litigants").

In determining whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of his 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, 779 F.2d

at 1423). “The first two of these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases,

while the fourth 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 comply with the Court's order to file a Notice of Change of Address, to comply with

Court-ordered deadlines, to comply with the Court's order to file a brief showing good cause

why this matter should not be dismissed, to make any effort to serve Defendants, or to

otherwise actively participate in this case 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. Despite the

Court's warnings in the March 2, 2006 and June 29, 2006 orders that Plaintiff's failure to

comply could result in dismissal of this action, Plaintiff nonetheless failed to comply with

the deadlines set out in those orders. Under such circumstances, 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, a dismissal with prejudice would be

unnecessarily harsh as the Complaint and this action can be dismissed without prejudice

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

Case 2:05-cv-02862-ROS Document 8 Filed 08/16/06 Page 4 of 5
- 5 -

III. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court

dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure for failure to prosecute.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), any party may serve and file written objections within

10 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. If objections

are filed, the parties should use the following case number: CV 05-2862-PHX-ROS.

If objections are not timely filed, then the parties' right to de novo review by the

District Court may be deemed waived. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003).

DATED this 16th day of August, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02862-ROS Document 8 Filed 08/16/06 Page 5 of 5