Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03062/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03062-0/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 JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Erick Griffin, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3062-PHX-MHM (JRI)

ORDER

This is a civil rights action brought by a former county jail inmate. The Court will

dismiss the action without prejudice for failing to keep the Court apprised of his address.

On October 3, 2005, the Court received Plaintiff’s Complaint for filing. Rule 3.4(a)

of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a prisoner-litigant comply with the

instructions attached to the court-approved complaint form. Those 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, ¶ H. 

On October 5, 2005, the Court issued a Notice of Assignment to Plaintiff (Doc. #2).

This notice also informed Plaintiff of his obligation to keep the Court advised of his current

address. On October 17, 2005, the Notice of Assignment was returned in the mail and

marked "Released" (Doc. #3). Plaintiff has not provided the Court with his present address,

Case 2:05-cv-03062-MHM--JRI Document 4 Filed 04/21/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

and more than five months have elapsed since he filed his Complaint.

The Court has no 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) (per curiam). If the Court were to order

Plaintiff to show cause why dismissal was not warranted, the Order “would only find itself

taking a round trip tour through the United States mail.” Id. The Court is also not required

to hold the matter in abeyance. “It would be absurd to require the district court to hold a case

in abeyance indefinitely just because it is unable, through the plaintiff’s own fault, to contact

the plaintiff to determine if his reasons for not prosecuting his lawsuit are reasonable or not.”

Id. 

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the rules and thereby has failed to prosecute this

action. See Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss his action without

prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Complaint and this action are dismissed

without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 16th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03062-MHM--JRI Document 4 Filed 04/21/06 Page 2 of 2