Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02314/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02314-0/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

AUGUSTINE F. SOTO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIV 05-02314 PHX NVW (MEA)

) 

JOE ARPAIO, MARICOPA COUNTY )

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

Defendant. ) 

____________________________ )

Plaintiff, while an inmate at the Maricopa County Lower

Buckeye jail in Phoenix, Arizona, filed a pro se complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 3, 2005. On December 28,

2005, the Court ordered Plaintiff to complete and return a

service packet for Defendant to the Court by January 17, 2006.

That order warned Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply

with the provisions of the order would result in the dismissal

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

Procedure. On December 28, 2005, the Court issued an order

directing monthly payments be made from Plaintiff’s inmate

account and sent a copy of the payment order to Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff was warned that his failure to acquire a

waiver of service from Defendants or to complete service of

process on Defendants within 60 days of the date that the

Case 2:05-cv-02314-NVW Document 6 Filed 03/01/06 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

1 Because Plaintiff was released from custody, Plaintiff is

obligated to pay the filing fee for his section 1983 action within one

month of being released from custody. 

-2-

service order was issued, i.e., by February 28, 2005, would

result in the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 4(m),

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 16.2(b)(2)(B), of the

United States District Court for the District of Arizona Local

Rules of Civil Procedure. The civil docket in this matter

indicates that Plaintiff has failed to acquire a waiver of

service from Defendants or to complete service of process on

Defendants.

Plaintiff was apparently released from the custody of

the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department prior to January 9,

2006.1 See Docket No. 5. All of the Court’s orders and the

service packet mailed to Plaintiff have been returned to the

Court as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not provided the Court

with his current address.

Rule 3.4, Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United

States District Court for the District of Arizona requires

prisoner-litigants to comply with instructions attached to the

Court-approved complaint form for use in section 1983 actions.

Those instructions provide: “You must immediately notify the

clerk ... in writing of any change in your mailing address.

Failure to notify the court of any change in your mailing

address may result in the dismissal of your case.” 

Plaintiff was warned that failure to file a notice of

change of address or to otherwise comply with the Court’s orders

Case 2:05-cv-02314-NVW Document 6 Filed 03/01/06 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-

could result in the dismissal of his suit. Plaintiff has not

filed a notice of change of address and mail sent to his last

known address was returned. An order to show cause why this

action should not be dismissed for failure to serve the

defendant or for failure to prosecute would be futile. See

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (stating that

“[a]n order to show cause why dismissal is not warranted or an

order imposing sanctions would only finding itself taking a

round trip tour through the United States mail). 

THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s complaint

be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply

with Rule 3.4, Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United

States District Court for the District of Arizona, and Rule

41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 28th day of February, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02314-NVW Document 6 Filed 03/01/06 Page 3 of 3