Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_21-cv-02219/USCOURTS-azd-2_21-cv-02219-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jesus Bustamante,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Centurion Health Care, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-21-02219-PHX-GMS (ESW)

ORDER 

TO THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT: 

This is a civil rights action filed by Jesus Bustamante (“Plaintiff”) pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff was incarcerated at the time of filing the Complaint. In the Notice 

of Assignment filed on December 28, 2021, the Court advised Plaintiff that he must file a 

Notice of Change of Address if his address changes and that the failure to do so may result 

in the case being dismissed. (Doc. 4 at 2). In its January 27, 2022 Order, the Court advised 

Petitioner that he “must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with 

Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure” and that the “[f]ailure to comply may 

result in dismissal of this action.” (Doc. 6 at 9). It is assumed that Plaintiff received the 

Notice of Assignment and Order as they were not returned as undeliverable. 

On June 28, 2022, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a First Amended Complaint, 

which the Court granted. (Docs. 28, 34). On August 21, 2023, numerous Defendants 

Case 2:21-cv-02219-GMS Document 148 Filed 10/05/23 Page 1 of 4
- 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

moved for summary judgment. (Doc. 135). The Court issued an Order stating that Plaintiff 

must file a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment no later than September 20, 

2023. (Doc. 136). The copy of the Order mailed to Plaintiff was returned to the Court with 

a notation that Plaintiff is no longer in custody. (Doc. 143). The returned mail does not 

provide a forwarding address.

On September 15, 2023, the Court ordered that no later than September 29, 2023, 

Plaintiff must either (i) file a notice of change of address or (ii) show cause why the case 

should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Doc. 145). However, pursuant to General 14-10, a copy of the 

Order was not mailed to Plaintiff. As of the date of the filing of this Report and 

Recommendation, Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address as required. 

I. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs have the general duty to prosecute their case. See Fidelity Phila. Trust 

Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978) (“It is a well established 

rule that the duty to move a case is on the plaintiff and not on the defendant or the court.”). 

“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). A 

plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court informed of his address constitutes a failure to 

prosecute.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that “if the plaintiff fails to 

prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss 

the action or any claim against it.” 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 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) appears to require a motion from a party. 

Moreover, in appropriate circumstances, the Court may dismiss a pleading for failure to 

prosecute even without notice or hearing. Link, 370 U.S. at 633.

Case 2:21-cv-02219-GMS Document 148 Filed 10/05/23 Page 2 of 4
- 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

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, 856 F.2d at 1440 (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 keep the Court informed of his current address 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 undersigned finds that only one less drastic sanction is realistically 

available. Rule 41(b) provides that a dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as 

adjudication upon the merits “[u]nless the dismissal order states otherwise.” The Court 

may dismiss the case without prejudice.

Plaintiff has not informed the Court of his new address despite having been ordered 

to do so. Mail to Plaintiff has been returned and cannot be forwarded. Plaintiff has 

abandoned his case. The undersigned will recommend dismissal of Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 33) without prejudice. 

II. CONCLUSION

 For the reasons set forth herein,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 33) be 

dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Orders and 

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

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (1) should 

Case 2:21-cv-02219-GMS Document 148 Filed 10/05/23 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

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

not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. The parties shall have fourteen 

days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific 

written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. 

Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. 

Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 

may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court 

without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 

2003). Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate 

Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of 

fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

'DWHGWKLVWKGD\RI2FWREHU

Case 2:21-cv-02219-GMS Document 148 Filed 10/05/23 Page 4 of 4