Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03561/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03561-0/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

1 When Plaintiff filed the Complaint, he was confined in the Lower

Buckeye Jail in Phoenix, Arizona.

- 1 -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

JAMES FOSTER FLORENDO, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-3561-PHX-JAT (BPV)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 James Foster Florendo (Plaintiff),address presently unknown, filed with the Clerk of

the Court on November 4, 2005, a pro se "Civil Rights Complaint By A Prisoner" (Document

#1) (Complaint) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

 Plaintiff has not paid the two hundred and

fifty dollar ($250.00) filing fee, but he has been authorized to proceed In Forma Pauperis.

RETURNED MAIL

On November 4, 2005, the Court entered a Notice of Assignment and mailed a copy

of the document to Plaintiff at the address listed on his Complaint. (Document # 2) On April

3, 2006, the Court entered an order directing the Clerk of the Court to mail a service packet

Case 2:05-cv-03561-JAT Document 6 Filed 06/06/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

to the Plaintiff, due for return to the Court on April 24, 2006. (Document # 3) The service

packet was mailed by the Clerk of Court to Plaintiff at his last known address at the Durango

Jail on April 4, 2006. On April 11, 2006, the service packet was returned to the Clerk of the

Court indicating "Return to Sender." (Documents # 5) The Clerk of Court conducted

research for an alternative address, to no avail. (Id.) Since then, Plaintiff has failed to file

a Notice of Change of Address, or in any way to notify the Court of his whereabouts. 

Rule 3.4(a) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure (LRCiv) requires that an

incarcerated 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).

Also, in its Notice of Assignment the Court warned Plaintiff that "[f]ailure to comply

with the following rules will result in your document being STRUCK and/or your case being

DISMISSED." (Notice at 1). One of the rules listed is that "[y]ou must file a Notice of

Change of Address if your address changes." (Document #2).

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

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 appraised 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 “[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

Case 2:05-cv-03561-JAT Document 6 Filed 06/06/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

(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. 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 or to actively participate in this case 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,

a dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh as the Complaint and this action can

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

Procedure. 

Case 2:05-cv-03561-JAT Document 6 Filed 06/06/06 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Magistrate Judge

recommends that the “Civil Rights Complaint By A Prisoner” [Doc. No. 1] and this action

be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), any party may serve and file written objections within

10 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. If objections

are not timely filed they may be deemed waived. The parties are advised that any objections

filed are to be identified with the following case number: CV 05-03561-PHX-JAT. 

DATED this 5th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03561-JAT Document 6 Filed 06/06/06 Page 4 of 4