Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01480/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01480-0/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

Jose Duran,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-1480-PHX-EHC (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff, formerly an inmate at the Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail, filed a pro se

Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 8, 2006 (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 p ay ment of the inmate filing

fee on August 3, 2006, and ordered Defendant Arpaio to answer the Complaint (Doc. #3, 4).

On August 11, 2006, a copy of one of the Court's August 3 Orders mailed to Plaintiff at his last

known address was "returned to sender" (Doc. #5). Plaintiff has not filed a change of

address.

Plaintiff has the general dut y t o 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 Plaint iff. "A party, not the district court, bears the burden

Case 2:06-cv-01480-EHC-DKD Document 6 Filed 09/14/06 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 -

of keeping the court apprised of any changes in his mailing address." Carey v. King, 856 F.2d

1439, 1441 (9t h 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 det ermining 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

resolut ion of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to

the defendants; (4) the public p olicy 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 imposit ion 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, t he 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 t o 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

Case 2:06-cv-01480-EHC-DKD Document 6 Filed 09/14/06 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 -

sanctions would only find itself taking a round trip tour through the United St at es mail." 856

F.2d at 1441.

The Court finds that only one less drast ic 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, t he

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. 

IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 41(b) of t he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

this action is dismissed without prejudice and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 11th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01480-EHC-DKD Document 6 Filed 09/14/06 Page 3 of 3