Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03523/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03523-1/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 Because Plaintiff was released from custody, Plaintiff is

obligated to pay the filing fee for his section 1983 action within one

month of being released from custody. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

CHRISTOS PERGAKIS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 05-3523 PHX DGC (MEA)

) 

JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

) FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT

Defendant. ) PREJUDICE

____________________________ )

Plaintiff, while an inmate at the Maricopa County

Towers Jail in Phoenix, Arizona, filed a pro se complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 2, 2005. On March 30,

2006, the Court issued an order directing monthly payments be

made from Plaintiff’s inmate account and sent a copy of the

payment order to Plaintiff. The Court’s order also required

Plaintiff to complete and return a service packet for Defendant

to the Court by April 19, 2006. 

Plaintiff was apparently released from the custody of

the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department prior to April 7, 2006.1

See Docket No. 5. Plaintiff has not provided the Court with his

current address.

Case 2:05-cv-03523-DGC Document 6 Filed 04/20/06 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, Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United

States District Court for the District of Arizona requires

prisoner-litigants to comply with instructions attached to the

Court-approved complaint form for use in section 1983 actions.

Those instructions provide: “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.” 

Plaintiff was warned that failure to file a notice of

change of address or to otherwise comply with the Court’s orders

could result in the dismissal of his suit. Plaintiff has not

filed a notice of change of address and mail sent to his last

known address was returned. An order to show cause why this

action should not be dismissed for failure to serve the

defendant or for failure to prosecute would be futile. See

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (stating that

“[a]n order to show cause why dismissal is not warranted or an

order imposing sanctions would only finding itself taking a

round trip tour through the United States mail). 

THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s complaint

be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply

with Rule 3.4, Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United

States District Court for the District of Arizona and Rule

41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of

service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file

Case 2:05-cv-03523-DGC Document 6 Filed 04/20/06 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-

specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the

parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to

the objections. Failure to timely file objections to any

factual or legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be

considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate

consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Failure to

timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of

the Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party’s right

to appellate review of the findings of fact and conclusions of

law in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

DATED this 19th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03523-DGC Document 6 Filed 04/20/06 Page 3 of 3