Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01670/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01670-0/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

1

 According to the Court's docket, mail sent to Green on March 6, 2006 was returned

because Green had been released from prison (Doc. No. 5). 

- 1 -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jose Gutierrez, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, et

al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-1670-PHX-SRB (JCG)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 Plaintiff Jose Gutierrez, Jr. was confined in the Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail in

Phoenix, Arizona, when he filed with the Clerk of the Court on June 3, 2005, a pro se Civil

Rights Complaint (Doc. No. 1) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

 Plaintiff has been authorized

to proceed In Forma Pauperis, and the Court has directed monthly payments to be made

from his prison account.

On February 27, 2006, the Court entered an order directing the Clerk of the Court to

mail a service packet to the Plaintiff, due for return to the Court on March 20, 2006 (Doc.

No. 4). The docket indicates that the Clerk of Court mailed the order and service packet

accordingly. On March 6, 2006, the mail was returned to the Clerk of the Court with

notations indicating "Released 6/2" (Doc. No. 6). The docket indicates that the Clerk of the

Court researched Plaintiff's address and forwarded the service packet to him at an address

Case 2:05-cv-01670-SRB-JCG Document 8 Filed 05/05/06 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 -

provided in his complaint. 

Plaintiff has failed to return a completed service packet, to obtain waiver of service

or to complete service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendants in this case. The order

that was mailed to Plaintiff along with the service packet notified Plaintiff that failure to

comply with every provision of the order would result in dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 4). The order contained provisions that

required Plaintiff to return the service packet within 20 days of the date of filing of the order.

Plaintiff was also notified that if he failed to comply with the order, the United States

Marshal would not provide service of process. Plaintiff was further notified within the order

that he must complete service of the Summons and Complaint on the Defendants within 120

days of the filing date of the complaint or within 60 days of the filing of the order, whichever

was later. The order notified Plaintiff that failure to comply with either provision would

result in dismissal of his case. More than 120 days have passed since Plaintiff filed his

complaint, and more than 60 days have passed since the Court issued its order, and to date

service has not been completed. Plaintiff’s failure to complete service of the Summons and

Complaint on the Defendants within 120 days of the filing date of the complaint or within

60 days of the filing of the order constitutes failure to prosecute.

A federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure

to prosecute. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). 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; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,

1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (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

Case 2:05-cv-01670-SRB-JCG Document 8 Filed 05/05/06 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 -

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 actively participate in this case or serve Defendants 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.

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,

a dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh as the Complaint and this action can

be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 1.17(d)(2),

Rules of Practice of the United States District Court, District of Arizona, the Magistrate

Judge recommends that Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 1) and this action be DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for

failure to prosecute.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), any party may serve and file written objections within

10 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. If objections

are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. The parties are advised that any objections

filed are to be identified with the following case number: CV-05-1670-PHX-SRB. 

DATED this 4th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01670-SRB-JCG Document 8 Filed 05/05/06 Page 3 of 3