Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01293/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01293-0/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

Lloyd Thomas, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 06-1293 PHX SMM (VAM)

)

Joseph Arpaio, ) O R D E R

)

 Defendant. )

Plaintiff filed a pro se Civil Rights Complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 15, 2006. (Doc. 1). In the Notice

of Assignment entered and mailed to Plaintiff on May 16, 2006,

Plaintiff was warned he must file a Notice of Change of Address

if his address changes and that failure to comply would result

in his case being dismissed. (Doc. 2). It is assumed this

Notice was received by Plaintiff as it was not returned as

undeliverable. Also, the service packet sent to Plaintiff for

completion was not returned as undeliverable and the completed

packet has not been returned. On October 24, 2006, Judge

Mathis issued an Order to show cause to Plaintiff for failure

to effect service. (Doc. 5). This Order was returned as

undeliverable (Doc. 6) and Plaintiff has not filed a change of

address.

Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case.

Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Pioche Mines Consolidated,

Case 2:06-cv-01293-SMM-VAM Document 7 Filed 11/03/06 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

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 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 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;

Case 2:06-cv-01293-SMM-VAM Document 7 Filed 11/03/06 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 3

(4) the public policy 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 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. Johnson, 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 is 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 will therefore be dismissed without

Case 2:06-cv-01293-SMM-VAM Document 7 Filed 11/03/06 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

prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. 

//

//

//

//

//

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to Rules 4(m) and

41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure this action is

dismissed without prejudice and the Clerk of the Court shall

enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 2nd day of November, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01293-SMM-VAM Document 7 Filed 11/03/06 Page 4 of 4