Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03776/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03776-2/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

FRANCISCO DESSENS, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIV 05-03776 PHX SMM MEA

)

JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

) WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 Defendant. )

_______________________________)

Plaintiff, while an inmate at the Maricopa County

Lower Buckeye Jail in Phoenix, Arizona, filed a pro se complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 22, 2005. (Docket No.

1.) On June 16, 2006, the Court issued an order directing

monthly payments be made from Plaintiff’s inmate account and

sent a copy of the payment order to Plaintiff. The Court’s

order also required Plaintiff to complete and return a service

packet for Defendant to the Court by July 6, 2006. (Docket No.

4.) The civil docket in this matter indicates that Plaintiff

never returned a service packet for Defendants to the Court.

Plaintiff was apparently released from the custody of

the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department on or prior to December

Case 2:05-cv-03776-SMM-MEA Document 7 Filed 11/03/06 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

1 Because Plaintiff was released from custody, Plaintiff is

obligated to pay the filing fee for his section 1983 action within 120

days of being released from custody. Docket No. 4 at 4.

-2-

5, 2005.1 See Docket No. 6 (returned mail noting “rel 12/5”).

In the Notice of Assignment mailed to Plaintiff on or about

November 22, 2005, Plaintiff was warned he must file a Notice of

Change of Address if his address changed and that failure to

comply would result in his case being dismissed. See Docket No.

2. It is assumed this notice was received by Plaintiff as it

was not returned as undeliverable. However, the Court’s order

filed June 16, 2006, was returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff

has not provided the Court with his current address and

Plaintiff never returned a service packet to the Court.

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

orders in a timely fashion. This Court does not have an

Case 2:05-cv-03776-SMM-MEA Document 7 Filed 11/03/06 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-

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

Case 2:05-cv-03776-SMM-MEA Document 7 Filed 11/03/06 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-

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 2:05-cv-03776-SMM-MEA Document 7 Filed 11/03/06 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 ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 41(b)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure this action is dismissed

without prejudice and the Clerk of the Court shall enter

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 2nd day of November, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03776-SMM-MEA Document 7 Filed 11/03/06 Page 5 of 5