Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02483/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02483-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

William Rex Beck,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 04-2483-PHX-EHC (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff, formerly an inmate at the Maricopa County Jail, filed a pro se Prisoner Civil

Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 9, 2004 (Doc. #1). The Court

issued a Notice of Assignment on that date, a copy of which was mailed to Plaintiff, in which

he was warned that failure to file a Notice of Change of Address could result in the case being

dismissed (Doc. #2). The Court issued an order for payment of the inmate filing fee on

December 17, 2004, and ordered defendants to answer the Complaint (Doc. #9). On January

27, 2006, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause for his failure to comply with the Court's

order to timely return the service packets (Doc. #10). On February 16, 2006, Plaintiff filed a

response to the OSC, explaining that he had moved several times and it had taken the Arizona

Department of Corrections several months to forward his mail (Doc. #11). On that date, he also

filed a Notice of Change of Address. During the next year, both parties filed dispositive

motions, which the Court ruled on in a September 28, 2006 Order (Doc. #24). On May 8, 2007,

the Court ordered Plaintiff to appear for his deposition at a mutually agreeable time (Doc. #31).

On May 15, 2007, a copy of the Court's May 8 Order mailed to Plaintiff at his last known

Case 2:04-cv-02483-EHC-DKD Document 33 Filed 05/30/07 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 -

address was returned as "not deliverable as addressed unable to forward"(Doc. #32). The

Arizona Department of Corrections Inmate Datasearch indicates that Plaintiff was released from

custody on April 13, 2007. Plaintiff has not filed a change of address.

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 (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.

Case 2:04-cv-02483-EHC-DKD Document 33 Filed 05/30/07 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 -

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.

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 or without prejudice would be unnecessarily

harsh. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff has sixty (60) days from the date this

Order to file a current address and telephone number. Failure to do so will result in an order

dismissing the case without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) .

DATED this 25th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02483-EHC-DKD Document 33 Filed 05/30/07 Page 3 of 3