Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00238/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00238-0/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

MDR

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Phelbert De Los Sims, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-238-PHX-DGC (MHB)

ORDER

On February 6, 2008, Plaintiff Phelbert De Los Sims, who was confined in the

Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint (Doc. #1) and an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 

I. Background

When Plaintiff filed his Complaint in person, he informed the Clerk of Court that he

was no longer incarcerated but had no current address to use. The Clerk of Court provided

Plaintiff with a form for filing a Notice of Change of Address and instructed Plaintiff to

inform the Court of his address as soon as possible. He has not done so. 

On February 7, 2008, the Clerk of Court mailed a copy of the Notice of Assignment,

which assigned this action to the undersigned Judge, to Plaintiff at the only address Plaintiff

had provided – the Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail. On February 13, 2008, the Notice

of Assignment was returned to the Court as undeliverable because Plaintiff is no longer in

custody.

Case 2:08-cv-00238-DGC--MHB Document 4 Filed 03/07/08 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 -

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

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

instructions state: “You must immediately notify the Court . . . 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.” (Instructions for a Prisoner Filing a Civil Rights

Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona at 2(7) (emphasis

in original)).

II. Failure to Prosecute

Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. See Fidelity Philadelphia Trust

Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., 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 a 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 Company, 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 a 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

Case 2:08-cv-00238-DGC--MHB Document 4 Filed 03/07/08 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 -

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. Johnston, 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 was 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 dismissal order states otherwise.” In the instant case, the Court finds that

a dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh. The Complaint and this action,

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

of Civil Procedure. 

IT IS ORDERED that the Complaint (Doc. #1) and this action are 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.

DATED this 7th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00238-DGC--MHB Document 4 Filed 03/07/08 Page 3 of 3