Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01614/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01614-0/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

SVK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Michael Soule, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

No. CV 07-1614-PHX-PGR (JCG) 

ORDER 

Magistrate Judge Guerin’s Report and Recommendation is before the Court; it

addresses Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and recommends dismissal. (Doc. #9.) Plaintiff

moves for Clarification of Status. (Doc. #10.) The Court will adopt the Report and

Recommendation and dismiss the case without prejudice. 

I. Background

Plaintiff David Michael Soule filed this pro se civil rights action on August 21, 2007;

his First Amended Complaint alleged that pursuant to a policy of Sheriff Arpaio, Maricopa

County Jail staff confiscated Plaintiff’s medications when he was booked and failed to

provide him medication for the next 50 days. (Doc. #5). On October 16, 2007, the Court

ordered service on Arpaio, directed the Clerk of Court to send Plaintiff a service packet, and

directed that Plaintiff complete and return the service packet within 20 days. (Doc. #8.)

There is no evidence that Plaintiff did not receive the service packet or the Court’s Order,

but, to date, Plaintiff has not returned a completed service packet, obtained waiver of service,

or completed service of the Summons and Complaint in this case. The Report and

Case 2:07-cv-01614-PGR Document 11 Filed 07/02/08 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

Recommendation, dated January 28, 2008, recommends dismissing the case, without

prejudice, for failure to prosecute. 

On February 13, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Clarification of Status. (Doc. #10.)

In the motion, Plaintiff “apologizes to the Court for his lapse in prosecuting his claims,” asks

at what point he is at and what action is required next, and states that “many factor[s] placed

Plaintiff at his present state, but he fully intends to proceed forward if allowed.” (Doc. #10

at 2.) The Court will construe this as an objection to the Report and Recommendation as

well as a request for the status of the case.

II. Failure to Prosecute

First, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s objections were filed beyond the 10-day period

permitted for objections and that there is nothing in the docket or Plaintiff’s motion to

suggest that he did not receive the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner.

Nevertheless, because Plaintiff filed an objection, the Court will review de novo the objectedto portions of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); See United States

v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (“[t]he

district judge . . . shall make a de novo determination . . . of any portion of the magistrate

judge’s disposition to which specific written objection has been made”). 

As the Report and Recommendation notes, 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). Plaintiff’s failure to return the service packets or to complete service of

process 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.

Case 2:07-cv-01614-PGR Document 11 Filed 07/02/08 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

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.” 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 serve Defendant prevents this case from proceeding in the future. Moreover, Plaintiff

offers no concrete explanation for his failure to return the service packet or to complete

service of process within 120 days of filing the Complaint. The fourth factor, as always,

weighs against dismissal. The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether a less

drastic alternative is available. 

The Court agrees with the Report and Recommendation 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.

 The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed another case with this Court, Soule v. Arpaio,

CV 07-1592-PHX-PGR (JCG), and that he filed a Notice of Change of Address for that case

and for his second case—the present case—although Plaintiff did not know the civil action

number. (Doc. #13 in CV 07-1592-PHX-PGR (JCG).) The Court will direct the Clerk of

Court to file a copy of that Notice in the present case.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff’s Motion for

Case 2:07-cv-01614-PGR Document 11 Filed 07/02/08 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

Clarification of Status (Doc. #10) and the Motion is granted only to the extent that this

Order advises Plaintiff of the status of this case and is denied in all other respects.

(2) The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Guerin (Doc. #9) is

adopted. 

(3) The Clerk of Court must file in this case a copy of the Notice of Change of

Address filed as Doc. #13 in CV 07-1592-PHX-PGR (JCG).

(4) This case is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute, and the Clerk

of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 2nd day of July, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01614-PGR Document 11 Filed 07/02/08 Page 4 of 4