Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03350/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03350-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 JWB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Petro N. Basargin, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Corrections Corporation of America, Inc.,

et al.

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3350-PHX-EHC

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute (Doc. #

81). Plaintiff was informed of his rights and obligations to respond to the motion (Doc. #

82). Yet Plaintiff still failed to respond. The Court will grant Defendants’ motion and

terminate this action.

I. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(b) provides that a court may dismiss

Plaintiff's action, or part thereof, for “failure ... to prosecute or to comply with these rules or

any order of court.” Unless otherwise specified, the dismissal acts as an adjudication on the

merits. FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 41(b). Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s failure to notify the

Court of his change of address and his failure to participate in the drafting and submission

of the joint proposed pretrial order, as required by this Court’s May 23, 2007 Order,

constitutes a failure to prosecute warranting the dismissal of this action. The Court agrees.

Case 2:05-cv-03350-EHC-CRP Document 85 Filed 08/21/07 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 -

District courts have inherent power to control their dockets and may impose sanctions,

including dismissal, in the exercise of that discretion. Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v.

Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.,

501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). 

The Ninth Circuit allows dismissal under Rule 41(b) only after the district court has

weighed 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. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th

Cir. 1986). Dismissal under Rule 41(b) will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a

“definite and firm conviction” that the district court committed clear error of judgment in

weighing the relevant factors. Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Here, the first three Thompson factors weigh in favor of dismissal. Defendants, in

their motion, contend that they attempted in good faith to contact Plaintiff to jointly prepare

the proposed pretrial order, which was due on June 22, 2007. Instead, Defendants learned

that Plaintiff had been released from custody on February 3, 2007. Plaintiff has not notified

the Court of his change of address. Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court apprised of his

address and failure to participate in the preparation of the joint proposed pretrial order clearly

undermines the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation. The case cannot

advance if Plaintiff does not provide the Court with his updated address or comply with the

Court’s orders. Plaintiff has been on notice of his obligation to update his address since

October of 2005 (Doc. # 23). 

Furthermore, the Court’s need to manage its docket is best served by dismissal. This

case has been pending in this Court for nearly two years. When cases such as this one linger

without resolution, it is only logical that the Court’s docket becomes unmanageable. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (public’s interest in expeditious

resolution of litigation and court’s need to manage its docket generally supports court’s

decision to dismiss). 

Case 2:05-cv-03350-EHC-CRP Document 85 Filed 08/21/07 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

 Alternately, the Court has the discretion under Rule 7.2(i) of the Local Rules of Civil

Procedure to deem Plaintiff’s lack of response as consent to Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff was warned of this possibility (Doc. # 83). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has

upheld a dismissal based on a failure to comply with a similar local rule in the District of

Nevada. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995). 

- 3 -

The third factor also supports dismissal. Plaintiff’s actions in failing to update his

address and comply with Court Orders prevents this case from moving forward. Here,

Plaintiff’s complete failure to file a notice of change of address or participate in the

preparation of the proposed pretrial order is sufficient grounds for the Court to dismiss under

Rule 41(b). See e.g., West Coast Theater Corp. v. City of Portland, 897 F.2d 1519, 1524 (9th

Cir. 1990) (incurring additional expense and loss of time constitutes sufficient prejudice to

dismiss). 

The fourth factor, the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, will

rarely, if ever, support dismissal. However, this factor is not entitled to much weight in a

case such as this one in which Plaintiff himself is precluding a decision on the merits in

failing to apprise the Court of his change of address. 

Finally, the fifth dismissal factor, the availability of less drastic sanctions, weighs in

favor of dismissal. The Court “need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before

finally dismissing a case.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986).

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has held that warning the plaintiff of the possibility of dismissal

before actually ordering dismissal meets this requirement. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262

(concluding that warning of dismissal is sufficient to show that court considered less drastic

alternatives); Malone, 833 F.2d at 132. The Court, in its December 8, 2005 Order, explicitly

stated that failure to advise the Court of any change of address would result in the dismissal

of his action pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. # 28). 

In sum, considering each of the above five factors, the Court finds that dismissal for

failure to comply with Court orders and for failure to prosecute is warranted.1

Accordingly, the Complaint and this action will be dismissed.

Case 2:05-cv-03350-EHC-CRP Document 85 Filed 08/21/07 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 -

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution (Doc.

# 81) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 

DATED this 20th day of August, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-03350-EHC-CRP Document 85 Filed 08/21/07 Page 4 of 4