Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00250/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00250-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gilbert Anthony Padilla, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIV 08-00250 PHX PGR MEA

v. ) 

) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Gilbert Gandara, Michael ) FOR DISMISSAL

Davidson, Rodolph Castillo, ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE

)

Defendants. )

_____________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE PAUL G. ROSENBLATT:

Plaintiff filed his complaint on February 7, 2008. On

March 27, 2008, the Court ordered Plaintiff to complete and

return a service packet for Defendant to the Court by April 16,

2008. That order warned Plaintiff that his failure to timely

comply with the provisions of the order would result in the

dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 41(b), Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. 

Plaintiff was warned that his failure to acquire a

waiver of service from Defendants or to complete service of

process on Defendants within 120 days of the date of he filed

his complaint, by June 5, 2007, would result in the dismissal of

the complaint pursuant to Rule 4(m), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and Rule 16.2(b)(2)(B), of the United States District

Court for the District of Arizona Local Rules of Civil

Case 2:08-cv-00250-PGR Document 7 Filed 07/17/08 Page 1 of 5
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-

Procedure. The civil docket in this matter indicates that

Plaintiff has failed to return service packets to the Court, or

acquire a waiver of service from Defendants or to complete

service of process on Defendants.

On June 6, 2008, the Court allowed Plaintiff until July

7, 2008, to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order of March

27, 2008, and Plaintiff’s failure to effect service of process

on Defendants as required by the Court’s order of March 27,

2008, and Rule 4, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff

has failed to show cause for his failure to abide by the Court’s

orders and to effect service of process on Defendants. The

Order to Show Cause sent to Plaintiff at his last known address

was returned as undeliverable.

Rule 3.4, Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United

States District Court for the District of Arizona requires

prisoner-litigants to comply with instructions attached to the

Court-approved complaint form for use in section 1983 actions.

Those instructions provide: “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.” 

Plaintiff has a general duty to prosecute this case.

Fidelity Phila. 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 current address and to comply with the Court’s

Case 2:08-cv-00250-PGR Document 7 Filed 07/17/08 Page 2 of 5
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-

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 (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

Case 2:08-cv-00250-PGR Document 7 Filed 07/17/08 Page 3 of 5
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-

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 2:08-cv-00250-PGR Document 7 Filed 07/17/08 Page 4 of 5
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 -5-

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to Rule

41(b) and Rule 4(m), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this

action be dismissed without prejudice.

DATED this 16th day of July, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00250-PGR Document 7 Filed 07/17/08 Page 5 of 5