Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02241/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02241-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Eisler,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joe Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2241 PHX-SRB (LOA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

This matter arises on the Court’s review of the file. Plaintiff commenced this action on

July 27, 2005. (document # 1) On September 30, 2005, the Court granted Plaintiff in forma

pauperis status and ordered service on Defendant Arpaio. (document # 3) The Court directed

Plaintiff to return the completed service packet for service on Defendant Arpaio by October 20,

2005. In that same Order, the Court directed Plaintiff to immediately notify the Court in writing

of any change in his address and warned Plaintiff that failure to do so could result in dismissal

of this action. 

Thereafter, on October 17, 2005 the Court received returned mail addressed to Plaintiff

marked "released." (document # 5) The returned mail evidences Plaintiff's failure to comply

with the Court's September 30, 2005 Order. 

In view of Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court’s Order, the Court ordered Plaintiff

to show cause on or before November 30, 2005 why his action should not be dismissed without

prejudice for failure to comply with Court orders. See, FED.R.CIV.P. 41(b)(stating that the court

may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of court.) (document # 6) The Court

Case 2:05-cv-02241-SRB Document 8 Filed 12/16/05 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 -

warned Plaintiff that failure to show cause may result in dismissal of his cause of action without

prejudice. (Id.)

On November 22, 2005, the Court again received mail addressed to Plaintiff marked

return to sender because Plaintiff is "no longer in custody." (document # 7) Plaintiff has

neither notified the Court of his current address nor otherwise responded to the Court's Order

to Show Cause. In view of Plaintiff's repeated failure to notify the Court of his current address

in violation of Court orders, this matter should be dismissed. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,

1440 (9th Cir. 1988)(holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing pro se

plaintiff's complaint for failure to advise the court of his current mailing address.) 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED without prejudice

based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with Court orders. 

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court=s judgment. The parties shall

have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file

specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(e),

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a

response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the

District Court without further review. See United States v. Reyna- Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003). 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-02241-SRB Document 8 Filed 12/16/05 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 -

Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge

will be considered a waiver of a party=s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an

order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge=s recommendation. See, Rule 72,

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dated this 15th day of December, 2005. 

Case 2:05-cv-02241-SRB Document 8 Filed 12/16/05 Page 3 of 3