Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01142/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01142-1/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 -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ryan Sachs, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-1142-PHX-SMM (JCG)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 Ryan Sachs (Plaintiff), currently confined in the Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail

in Phoenix, Arizona, filed with the Clerk of the Court on April 13, 2005, a pro se Civil

Rights Complaint (Doc. No. 1) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been authorized

to proceed In Forma Pauperis, and the court has directed monthly payments to be made from

his prison account.

On November 4, 2005, the Court entered an order directing the Clerk of the Court to

mail a service packet to the Plaintiff, due for return to the Court on November 25, 2005.

(Doc. No. 6). The docket indicates that the Clerk of Court mailed the order and service

packet accordingly. To date Plaintiff has failed to return a completed service packet, to

obtain waiver of service or to complete service of the Summons and Complaint on

Defendants in this case. 

The order that was mailed to Plaintiff along with the service packet notified Plaintiff

Case 2:05-cv-01142-SMM Document 9 Filed 04/03/06 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 -

that failure to comply with every provision of the order would result in dismissal pursuant

to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 6). The order contained

provisions that required Plaintiff to return the service packet within 20 days of the date of

filing of the order. Plaintiff was also notified that if he failed to comply with the order, the

United States Marshal would not provide service of process. 

Plaintiff was further notified within the order that he must complete service of the

Summons and Complaint on the Defendants within 120 days of the filing date of the

complaint or within 60 days of the filing of the order, whichever was later. The order

notified Plaintiff that failure to comply with either provision would result in dismissal of his

case. More than 120 days have passed since Plaintiff filed his complaint, and to date service

has not been completed.

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). Plaintiff’s failure to

complete service of the Summons and Complaint on the Defendants within 120 days of the

filing date of the complaint or within 60 days of the filing of the order constitutes failure to

prosecute.

A federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure

to prosecute. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). In appropriate

circumstances, the Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute even without

notice or hearing. 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

Case 2:05-cv-01142-SMM Document 9 Filed 04/03/06 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 -

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 serve Defendants, or to 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. 

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,

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. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 1.17(d)(2),

Rules of Practice of the United States District Court, District of Arizona, the Magistrate

Judge recommends that Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 1) and this action be DISMISSED

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 not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. The parties are advised that any objections

filed are to be identified with the following case number: CV 05-1142-PHX-SMM. 

DATED this 3rd day of April, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01142-SMM Document 9 Filed 04/03/06 Page 3 of 3