Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01252/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01252-4/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

fe`

- 1 -

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rockney Willard Martineau,

Plaintiff

-vsJoseph M. Arpaio,

Defendant(s)

CV-07-1252-PHX-SMM (JI)

ORDER

Plaintiff filed a pro se Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June

26, 2007 (Doc. #1). In the Notice of Assignment (Doc. #2) entered and mailed to Plaintiff

on June 26, 2007, and the Service Order filed July 3, 2007, Plaintiff was warned he must file

a Notice of Change of Address if his address changes and that failure to comply would result

in his case being dismissed. However, the Court Order filed December 19, 2007 (Doc. #29)

was returned as undeliverable with the notation that Plaintiff was released from custody

(Doc. #30). Plaintiff has not filed a change of address.

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 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.

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." In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962), the Supreme

Case 2:07-cv-01252-SMM-JRI Document 31 Filed 01/25/08 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 -

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. 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 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 court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies." 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. 

Case 2:07-cv-01252-SMM-JRI Document 31 Filed 01/25/08 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 -

In the meantime, Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #20), seeking a

dismissal on the basis that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Defendants do not seek a dismissal with prejudice. In light of the Court’s decision to dismiss

for failure to prosecute, this motion will be denied as moot.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed

September 5, 2007 (Doc. #20) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

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

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 24th day of January, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01252-SMM-JRI Document 31 Filed 01/25/08 Page 3 of 3