Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02828/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02828-0/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

Javier Atondo, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2828-PHX-NVW (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff, a county jail inmate at the Durango Jail in Phoenix, Arizona, filed a pro se

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

for failure to prosecute.

On September 15, 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

23, 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 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

Case 2:05-cv-02828-NVW--ECV Document 4 Filed 10/28/05 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 -

2, ¶ H. The Court has no 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) (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

the matter in abeyance. “It would be absurd to require the district court to hold a case in

abeyance indefinitely just because it is unable, through the 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 time 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 apprised 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 27th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-02828-NVW--ECV Document 4 Filed 10/28/05 Page 2 of 2