Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02319/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02319-0/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

MDR

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Timothy John Florez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-2319-PHX-DGC (SPL)

ORDER

On October 30, 2012, Plaintiff Timothy John Florez, who was confined in the

Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint (Doc. 1) and an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2).

I. Returned Mail

On October 30, 2012, the Clerk of Court filed a Notice of Assignment, assigning this

action to the undersigned Judge. On October 30, 2012, the Clerk of Court mailed a copy of

the Notice of Assignment to Plaintiff at his last known address at the Maricopa County

Fourth Avenue Jail.

On November 5, 2012, the Notice of Assignment was returned to the Court as “Not

Deliverable as Addressed[;] Unable to Forward,” with a notation that Plaintiff was “No

Longer in Custody.” Plaintiff has failed to file a Notice of Change of Address or notify the

Court in any way of his whereabouts. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court has been unable to

remail the copy of the Notice of Assignment to Plaintiff.

Case 2:12-cv-02319-DGC--SPL Document 6 Filed 11/27/12 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 -

Rule 3.4 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 Court . . . 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.” (Instructions for a Prisoner Filing a Civil Rights

Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona at 2(7) (emphasis

in original)).

II. Failure to Prosecute

Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. See Fidelity Philadelphia 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 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 a 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 Company, 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 a 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

Case 2:12-cv-02319-DGC--SPL Document 6 Filed 11/27/12 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

1

The Court notes, moreover, that Plaintiff did not identify a jurisdictional basis for his

lawsuit and that both of the Defendants he sued, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and

Correctional Health Services, are improper Defendants.

- 3 -

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. Johnston, 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 was 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, therefore, will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) 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. The

Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

. . . .

(2) The Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied as moot.

Case 2:12-cv-02319-DGC--SPL Document 6 Filed 11/27/12 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 -

DATED this 26th day of November, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-02319-DGC--SPL Document 6 Filed 11/27/12 Page 4 of 4