Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00997/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00997-2/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jenghiz K. Stewart,

Plaintiff

-vsMedical Review Committee, et al.,

Defendants.

CV-11-0997-PHX-JWS (JFM)

Report and Recommendation

on Motion to Dismiss for 

Failure to Prosecute

In an Order filed July 15, 2013 (Doc. 53), the Court referred Defendants’ Motion 

to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute to the undersigned for preparation of a Report and 

Recommendation.

Background - Plaintiff filed a pro se Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 on May 19, 2011 (Doc. 1). The case was dismissed on screening, Plaintiff 

appealed, and the judgment was vacated in part. (Order 8/9/11, Doc. 8; Mandate 

10/18/12, Doc. 15.) Service was ultimately ordered on March 29, 2013. (Order 3/29/13 

at 26.) That service Order provided:

Plaintiff 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. 

Plaintiff must not include a motion for other relief with a notice of 

change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this 

action.

(Order 3/29/13, Doc. 26 at 4.) 

Service has progressed, with service on Defendants Gilchrest and Myers 

completed (Docs. 36, 46), and service on the remaining five defendants being returned 

unexecuted (Docs. 39,40,43, 44, and 45). Defendant Gilchrest has filed an Answer (Doc. 

41). A scheduling order has not yet been entered.

On May 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay (Doc. 34). In that motion, 

Plaintiff provided notice of his anticipated release from prison on May 11, 2013, and 

Case 2:11-cv-00997-JWS Document 57 Filed 08/28/13 Page 1 of 6
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

sought a six month delay in the proceedings to permit him to get settled and to obtain 

transportation. On May 16, 2013, the motion was denied, and Plaintiff was given 

fourteen days to file a notice of change of address. (Order 5/16/13, Doc. 35.)

Plaintiff did not file a notice of change of address. Plaintiff’s copies of the Order 

to Show Cause (Doc. 35) and a Waiver of Service (Doc. 36) were returned 

undeliverable, indicating Plaintiff was no longer in custody. (Docs. 37, 38.) A review of 

the Arizona Department of Corrections website reflects, however, that Plaintiff’s status 

is “inactive,” his last movement was on May 11, 2013, his sentence end date was May 

11, 2013, and his release type is an absolute discharge. See

http://www.azcorrections.gov/inmate_datasearch/results_Minh.aspx?InmateNumber=13

7924&LastName=STEWART&FNMI=J&SearchType=SearchInet, last accessed 

8/28/13.

On June 25, 2013, the undersigned filed a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 48), 

recommending that the case be dismissed without prejudice as a result of Plaintiff’s 

failure to file a notice of change of address. In the interim, on June 24, 2013, Defendant 

filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution (Doc. 47), the instant motion. Plaintiff 

was given through July 11, 2013 to respond to the motion. (Order 6/25/13, Doc. 49.) 

That Order warned Plaintiff of the risk of dismissal if he failed to respond. 

On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond (Doc. 

52) to the Motion to Dismiss, and provided a new address. On July 15, 2013 (Doc. 53), 

District Judge Sedwick granted the Motion for Extension, directed renewed service of 

the Motion to Dismiss, set a response deadline of August 16, 2013 and referred the 

Motion to Dismiss to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation. Renewed 

service was completed on July 16, 2013 (Doc. 54). On July 22, 2013 (Doc. 55), Judge 

Sedwick rejected the Report and Recommendation which has sua sponte recommended 

dismissal for failure to prosecute. 

Plaintiff’s copy of the latter order was returned undeliverable (Doc. 56). Plaintiff 

has not responded to the Motion to Dismiss, and has not filed a new notice of change of 

Case 2:11-cv-00997-JWS Document 57 Filed 08/28/13 Page 2 of 6
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

address.

Motion to Dismiss – Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal with 

prejudice for failure to prosecute for failure to comply with the Court’s order to file a 

notice of change of address, and failing to keep the Court and Defendant apprised as to 

his contact information. Defendant provides an Arizona Department of Corrections 

Inmate Record reflecting Plaintiff’s release.

As discussed hereinabove, Plaintiff has not responded, and the time to do so has 

expired. Plaintiff’s copy of the Order (Doc. 53) has not been returned undeliverable, 

although his copy of the subsequent Order (Doc. 55) was returned undeliverable as 

“Refused.” 

Failure to Prosecute - Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

provides that "[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court 

order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action." Moreover, 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 has taken no action, apart 

from two motions seeking extensions (Docs. 34, 52) and a now invalid change of address 

(Doc. 50), to prosecute this action since service was initiated in May, 2013. 

Further, it is the duty of a plaintiff who has filed a pro se action to keep the Court 

apprised of his or her current address and to comply with the Court's orders in a timely 

fashion. This Court does not have an 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). Plaintiff's 

failure to keep the Court informed of his new address constitutes failure to prosecute. 

Moreover, it constitutes a failure to comply with the Court’s explicit orders that he file a 

notice of change of address. (Docs. 26 and 35.)

Finally, despite obtaining an extension of time to do so, Plaintiff has failed to 

respond to the Motion to Dismiss. Local Civil Rule 7.2(i) provides that failure to 

respond to a motion “may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion, 

Case 2:11-cv-00997-JWS Document 57 Filed 08/28/13 Page 3 of 6
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

and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” Plaintiff’s failure to respond to 

the Motion to Dismiss should be considered a consent to the granting of the motion.

Dismissal as Sanction - 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 correct address and failure to respond to the 

Court's orders as to his address prevents the case from proceeding in the foreseeable 

future. Moreover, Defendant and the Court has now been subjected to extensive delays 

in the prosecution of this case by Plaintiff’s feint at responding to the Motion to Dismiss. 

The delay is compounded by the overall age of the case.

The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. 

Defendants seek dismissal with prejudice. The fifth factor requires the Court to 

consider whether a less drastic alternative is available. 

the following factors are of particular relevance in determining 

whether a district court has considered alternatives to dismissal: (1) 

Did the court explicitly discuss the feasibility of less drastic 

sanctions and explain why alternative sanctions would be 

inadequate? (2) Did the court implement alternative methods of 

sanctioning or curing the malfeasance before ordering dismissal? (3) 

Did the court warn the plaintiff of the possibility of dismissal before 

actually ordering dismissal?

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 132 (9th Cir. 1987). 

The undersigned originally found that only one less drastic sanction was 

Case 2:11-cv-00997-JWS Document 57 Filed 08/28/13 Page 4 of 6
5

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

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." The undersigned finds that a dismissal with prejudice would be 

unnecessarily harsh. That finding was based upon the presumption that Plaintiff was, as 

a result of the returned mails, unaware that his case faced dismissal.

As found previously, without confirmation of Plaintiff's current address or his 

response to the Court's orders, however, certain alternatives are bound to be futile. Here, 

as in Carey, "[a]n order to show cause why dismissal is not warranted or an order 

imposing sanctions would only find itself taking a round trip tour through the United 

States mail." 856 F.2d at 1441. Moreover, the Court has already, in essence, warned 

Plaintiff via the original Report and Recommendation that dismissal was the likely result 

of his failure to prosecute. Despite that warning, Plaintiff has again failed to comply.

In the present situation, Plaintiff was aware of the motion to dismiss and the 

Court’s order setting a deadline to respond. He was further made doubly aware of the 

risk of dismissal as a result of failing to keep the Court apprised of his address, by virtue 

of the motion and the original Report and Recommendation. Despite that knowledge, 

Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion to dismiss, to provide his current address, 

and to otherwise prosecute this case. His doing so in the face of a sua sponte

recommendation to dismiss without prejudice, and a motion to dismiss with prejudice 

indicate no sanction will motivate him to action.

Accordingly, the Court has: (1) explicitly considered alternatives to dismissal 

with prejudice; (2) implemented alternatives to curing the failure to prosecute before 

dismissing, e.g. rejecting a recommendation to dismiss with prejudice and extending the 

time for Plaintiff to pursue the action; and (3) repeatedly warned Plaintiff of the risks of 

his behavior, e.g. in the service order (Doc. 26), the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 

48), and the scheduling Order (Doc. 49) on the Motion to Dismiss.

Under these circumstances, a dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. See

Malone, 833 F.2d at 133 (upholding dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute). 

Case 2:11-cv-00997-JWS Document 57 Filed 08/28/13 Page 5 of 6
6

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

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 

for Lack of Prosecution, filed June 24, 2013 (Doc. 47) be GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.

EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATION

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

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. 

However, pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall 

have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within 

which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have 

fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file 

objections to any findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge will be 

considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues, see United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc), and will constitute 

a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or 

judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation of the magistrate judge, Robbins v. 

Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Dated: August 28, 2013

11-0997o Order 13 08 28 re RR on MTD.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:11-cv-00997-JWS Document 57 Filed 08/28/13 Page 6 of 6