Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01456/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01456-7/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

Royce-Wayne Gibbons, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1456-PHX-SMM (JCG)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant on January 15,

2009. (Doc. No. 45.) Plaintiff did not respond to the Motion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Royce-Wayne Gibbons, Plaintiff, filed an action against Defendant in the Maricopa

Superior Court on July 9, 2007. Defendant removed the action to United States District

Court for the District of Arizona on July 31, 2007. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff’s complaint was

dismissed with leave to amend; Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 24, 2007

asserting claims against Defendant arising under 42 U.S.C. §1983. (Doc. Nos. 6, 11.) After

the Court denied a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant, Defendant filed an Answer to the

Amended Complaint and a partial Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. Nos. 27, 30 & 31.)

The Court granted the partial Motion for Summary Judgment on October 2, 2008. (Doc. No.

43.) The Court mailed a copy of the Court’s order granting the partial Motion for Summary

Judgment to Plaintiff at the prison address provided; the mail was returned as undeliverable

Case 2:07-cv-01456-SMM Document 46 Filed 02/18/09 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 -

because Plaintiff was no longer in custody. (Doc. No. 44.) On November 14, 2008, the

Court forwarded a copy of the Court’s docket and its most recent Orders to Plaintiff at an

address that Plaintiff listed on his response to Defendant’s partial Motion for Summary

Judgment. On January 15, 2009, Defendant filed the pending Motion, seeking dismissal on

the ground that Plaintiff had failed to prosecute the pending action. (Doc. No. 45.)

ANALYSIS

The Court advised Plaintiff in a previous Order that failure to comply with every

provision of the Court’s Orders would result in dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 14.) The Court also advised Plaintiff that he

“must file and serve a notice of change of address in accordance with Rule 83.3(d) of the

Local Rules of Civil Procedure” and that “failure to comply may result in dismissal of this

action.” (Id.) Both the Court and Defendant have attempted to locate Plaintiff without

success. The Court forwarded its most recent orders to an address provided by Plaintiff in

a previous filing. Defendant states in the pending Motion that defense counsel has

undertaken a good faith and reasonable search to try and identify a current address or

whereabouts of Plaintiff without success. Neither the Court nor Defendant has received any

communication from Plaintiff since July, 2008.

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. The 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.

A federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure

to prosecute. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). In appropriate

Case 2:07-cv-01456-SMM Document 46 Filed 02/18/09 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 -

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 v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988)

(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 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.

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. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 1.17(d)(2),

Rules of Practice of the United States District Court, District of Arizona, the Magistrate

Judge recommends that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 11) and this action be

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

Procedure for failure to prosecute.

Case 2:07-cv-01456-SMM Document 46 Filed 02/18/09 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 -

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-07-1456-PHX-SMM.

DATED this 18th day of February, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-01456-SMM Document 46 Filed 02/18/09 Page 4 of 4