Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01873/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01873-0/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 SH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Alejandro Mendez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Corizon Medical, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 14-01873-PHX-SPL (MEA) 

ORDER 

On August 22, 2014, Plaintiff Alejandro Mendez, who was confined in the 

Arizona State Prison Complex-Florence (“ASPC-Florence”), filed a pro se civil rights 

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). On September 30, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting 

the Application to Proceed and denying the Complaint for failure to state a claim 

(Doc. 5), and an Order directing monthly payments from Plaintiff’s prison account 

towards the $350.00 filing fee (Doc. 6). That same day, the Clerk of Court mailed 

Plaintiff copies of both Orders to his last known address at ASPC-Florence. 

 On October 6, 2014, the Orders were returned to the Court as undeliverable 

because Plaintiff was no longer in custody. Plaintiff has failed to file a Notice of Change 

of Address, or to in any way notify the Court of his whereabouts. Accordingly, the Clerk 

of Court has been unable to re-mail the copy of the Orders to Plaintiff. 

 Rule 3.4 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure requires an incarcerated litigant to 

comply with the instructions attached to the court-approved Complaint form. Those 

Case 2:14-cv-01873-SPL--MEA Document 8 Filed 11/14/14 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

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 2). 

 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, it 

is the duty of a plaintiff who has filed a pro se action to keep the Court apprised of his 

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. 

 Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[f]or failure of 

the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant 

may move for dismissal of an action.” 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 

Case 2:14-cv-01873-SPL--MEA Document 8 Filed 11/14/14 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

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 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. 

Without Plaintiff’s current address, however, certain alternatives are bound to be futile. 

Here, as in Carey, “[a]n order to show cause why dismissal is not warranted . . . 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 court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies.” In the instant 

case, the Court finds that a dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh. This 

action will therefore be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) This action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court must enter 

judgment accordingly. 

 (2) The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal of 

this decision would not be taken in good faith. 

 Dated this 14th day of November, 2014.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-01873-SPL--MEA Document 8 Filed 11/14/14 Page 3 of 3