Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01829/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01829-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Anthony Aaron Grady,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1829-PHX-MHM (LOA)

ORDER

This matter arises on the Court’s review of the file. Plaintiff commenced this action on

September 1, 2009. (docket # 1) On October 30, 2009, the Court dismissed the Complaint for

failure to state a claim, and granted Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint. (docket #

4) On November 10, 2009, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (docket # 5) On December

23, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status and ordered service on Defendant

Arpaio. (docket # 6) The December 23, 2009 Order also directed Plaintiff to notify the Court

in writing of any change in his address and warned Plaintiff that failure to do so could result in

dismissal of this action. (Id.) Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.3(d) also requires Plaintiff to

notify the Court in writing of any change in address “within seven (7) days after the effective

date of the change.” Id. On January 4, 2010, the Court received returned mail addressed to

Plaintiff marked “Return to Sender. No longer in custody.” (docket # 7) 

In view of Plaintiff’s failure to provide notice of his current address, the Court ordered

Plaintiff to show cause on or before February 5, 2010 why this matter should not be dismissed

Case 2:09-cv-01829-MHM Document 10 Filed 02/24/10 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 -

without prejudice for failure to comply with the Local Rules and the Court’s order pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). (docket # 8) On January 25, 2010, the Order to Show Cause was returned

as undeliverable. (docket # 9) In view of Plaintiff’s failure to provide notice of his current

address, the Court will consider whether to dismiss this case. 

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). In this regard, a plaintiff who

has filed a pro se action must keep the Court apprized of his or her current address and 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

apprized 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.

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 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 Rule 41(b) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure appears to require a motion from a party. Moreover, 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, 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.

Case 2:09-cv-01829-MHM Document 10 Filed 02/24/10 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 -

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 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 Court has already issued

an order to show cause which was returned as undeliverable. As the Court in Carey noted,

“[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.

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 dismissal order states otherwise.” In the instant case, the Court finds that a

dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh. The Complaint and this action will

therefore be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, this action is dismissed without prejudice and the Clerk of Court shall enter

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2010.

 

Case 2:09-cv-01829-MHM Document 10 Filed 02/24/10 Page 3 of 3