Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02224/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02224-1/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 RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Quentin Michael McDonald, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-2224-PHX-SMM (ECV)

ORDER

On November 15, 2007, Plaintiff Quentin Michael McDonald, formerly confined in

the Maricopa County Durango Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. By Order filed November

29, 2007 (Doc. #4), the Maricopa County Sheriff or his designee was required to send to the

Clerk of the Court an initial partial filing fee of $8.00, and thereafter, payments from

Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeded $10.00, until the

balance of the statutory filing fee of $350.00 was paid in full. 

The Court will dismiss the Complaint and this action without prejudice.

I. Returned Mail

On November 15, 2007, the Court filed a Notice of Assignment (Doc. #2), which

assigned this action to the undersigned Judge. A copy of the Notice was mailed by the Clerk

of Court to Plaintiff at his last known address at the Maricopa County Durango Jail on

November 16, 2007. On November 27, 2007, the envelope containing the copy of the Notice

was returned to the Clerk of Court with the notations “Return To Sender,” “No Longer In

Case 2:07-cv-02224-SMM--ECV Document 6 Filed 01/28/08 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 -

Custody,”and “Released.” Additionally, on November 29, 2007, the Clerk of Court mailed

a copy of the Court’s Order (Doc. #4) to Plaintiff at the same last known address. On

December 4, 2007, the envelope containing the copy of the Order was returned to the Clerk

of Court with the notations “Return To Sender,” “No Longer In Custody,”and “Release.” 

Since the return of these copies, Plaintiff has failed to file a Notice of Change of

Address or to in any way notify the Court of his whereabouts. Accordingly, the Clerk of

Court has been unable to remail the copies of the Notice and Order to Plaintiff.

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 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.”

Also, in its Notice, 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." One of the rules listed was that "[y]ou must file a Notice of Change of

Address if your address changes."

II. 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 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 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 2:07-cv-02224-SMM--ECV Document 6 Filed 01/28/08 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 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 2:07-cv-02224-SMM--ECV Document 6 Filed 01/28/08 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 -

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 and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 28th day of January, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02224-SMM--ECV Document 6 Filed 01/28/08 Page 4 of 4