Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03632/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03632-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

- 1 -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Brian McDaniel,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3632-PHX-SRB (HCE)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

On November 10, 2005, Plaintiff, who was at that time incarcerated at the Lower

Buckeye Jail in Maricopa County, Arizona, filed the instant pro se action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 23, 2005, the Court entered an order directing, inter alia, the Clerk of

Court to mail a service packet to Plaintiff and directing Plaintiff to return the completed

service packet to the Court within twenty days. The December 23, 2005 Order and service

packet were mailed that same date to Plaintiff at his last known address of record at the

Lower Buckeye Jail. On December 29, 2005, the envelope containing the December 23, 2005

Order and service packet was returned to the Clerk of Court with the following notation:

Returned to Sender and Unable to Forward. (Doc. No. 5) Through research, the Clerk of

Case 2:05-cv-03632-SRB Document 7 Filed 07/17/06 Page 1 of 5
- 2 -

Court learned that Plaintiff was no longer incarcerated at the Lower Buckeye Jail but that

he was at the Arizona State Prison Complex (hereinafter "ASPC"). (Id.) On December 30,

2005, the Clerk of Court mailed the December 23, 2005 Order and service packet to Plaintiff

at the ASPC address. (Id.) The Clerk of Court also revised the docket to reflect Plaintiff's

current address at the ASPC.

Local Rule Civil 3.4(a), Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District

of Arizona, 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).

In the Notice of Assignment, sent to Plaintiff on November 10, 2005, 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 was that "[y]ou must file a Notice of Change of Address if your address changes."

(Id.)

Additionally, the December 23, 2005 Order that was mailed to Plaintiff at the ASPC

warned Plaintiff that: "[a]t all times during the pendency of this action, Plaintiff shall

immediately advise the Court and the United States Marshal of any change of address and

its effective date. Such notice shall be captioned “NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.”

The notice shall contain only information pertaining to the change of address and its effective

date... Failure to file a Notice of Change of Address may result in the dismissal of the action

for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

(December 23, 2005 Order, p.6) The Court also required Plaintiff to return the completed

service packet within twenty days and warned Plaintiff that his failure to either obtain a

waiver of service or to otherwise effect service within 120 days of the filing date of the

complaint or within 60 days of the filing of the Order, whichever was later, may result in

Case 2:05-cv-03632-SRB Document 7 Filed 07/17/06 Page 2 of 5
- 3 -

dismissal. (Id. at p. 4) 

Plaintiff has not filed a Notice of Change of Address. Plaintiff has not returned the

service packet to the Court within the deadline nor has he requested an extension of that

deadline. Plaintiff has not obtained a waiver of service from Defendants nor has he served

Defendants with the Complaint and Summons within the Court-ordered deadline. Plaintiff

has not filed any document notifying the Court that he intends to prosecute this action.

Plaintiff has filed no documents in this action since November 10, 2005. Therefore, on June

1, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiff until June 21, 2006 to file a brief showing good cause

why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff was advised that his failure to file such brief by

the deadline would result in a recommendation to the District Court to dismiss this action

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41. The docket reflects that on June 7, 2006, the Court's June 1,

2006 Order was mailed to Plaintiff at his current address of record. To date, Plaintiff has not

filed the brief required by the Court's June 1, 2006 Order.

II. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may dismiss

an action "[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order

of court." Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); see also Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. United States

Forest Service, 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) ("courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua

sponte"); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (same). 

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 comply with the Court’s orders in a timely

fashion. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissing action for failure

to keep court apprised of current address); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995) ("pro

se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure"); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.

1987)("[p]ro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other

Case 2:05-cv-03632-SRB Document 7 Filed 07/17/06 Page 3 of 5
- 4 -

litigants").

In determining whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of his 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 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 comply with the Court's order to file a Notice of Change of Address, to comply with

Court-ordered deadlines, to comply with the Court's order to file a brief showing good cause

why this matter should not be dismissed, to make any effort to serve Defendant, or to

otherwise 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. 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. 

III. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court

dismiss this action 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

Case 2:05-cv-03632-SRB Document 7 Filed 07/17/06 Page 4 of 5
- 5 -

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

are filed, the parties should use the following case number: CV 05-3632-PHX-SRB.

If objections are not timely filed, then the parties' right to de novo review by the

District Court may be deemed waived. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003).

DATED this 14th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03632-SRB Document 7 Filed 07/17/06 Page 5 of 5