Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00633/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00633-1/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

LMH

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Quinn Douglas Fitzgerald, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joe Arpaio, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 03-0633-PHX-DGC (ECV)

ORDER

This is a civil rights action brought by a former county jail inmate. Defendant has

moved for summary judgment. The Court will dismiss the action without prejudice for

Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court notified of his current address and deny Defendant’s

motion as moot.

1. Procedural History

Soon after filing his complaint, Plaintiff notified the Court that he had been transferred

to the state prison (dkt. #3). On screening Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, the Court

dismissed (dkt. #9) his visitation claim and required Defendant Arpaio to answer Plaintiff’s

claim that the food was nutritionally inadequate. On February 15, 2005, Plaintiff filed a

change of address from the state prison to a residence in Mesa (dkt. #13).

 Nearly a year later, on February 2, 2006, Defendant moved for summary judgment

(dkt. #14-15), and mailed a copy of his motion to Plaintiff at the state prison and then remailed it to Plaintiff’s residence in Mesa (dkt. #17). The Court issued the customary warning

Case 2:03-cv-00633-DGC-ECV Document 21 Filed 06/14/06 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 -

(dkt. #16) regarding Plaintiff’s obligations in responding to the motion. This order was

mailed to the Mesa address and returned as undeliverable (dkt. #18). 

The Court then entered an order withdrawing the reference to the magistrate judge on

the summary judgment motion (dkt. #19). This order, too, was returned as undeliverable

(dkt. #20) on April 5, 2006, with the notation “NATA,” or “Not At This Address.”

2. Analysis

Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure requires Plaintiff to file a notice

of a change of address 10 days before the move is effective. Also, Plaintiff was informed in

the instructions accompanying the form complaint that he must immediately inform the Clerk

of Court of a change of address or face possible dismissal. He was again informed of this

requirement and possible dismissal in the notice of assignment. Plaintiff knew about this

requirement, as he informed the Court on two different occasions of his change of address

(dkt. #3, #13), with the last notification occurring in February 2005. 

Nearly a year has elapsed, and now two recent Orders have been returned as

undeliverable. Plaintiff has not submitted his new address. “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) (per curiam). If the Court were to show cause

Plaintiff why dismissal were not warranted, the Order “would only find itself taking a round

trip tour through the United States mail.” Id. The Court is also not required to hold the

matter in abeyance in hopes that an address change will be forthcoming. “It would be absurd

to require the district court to hold a case in abeyance indefinitely just because it is unable,

through the plaintiff’s own fault, to contact the plaintiff to determine if his reasons for not

prosecuting his lawsuit are reasonable or not.” Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441. 

Before dismissal for lack of prosecution, the court must weigh (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, 856 F.2d at 1440 (quoting

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). If the court does not consider

Case 2:03-cv-00633-DGC-ECV Document 21 Filed 06/14/06 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 -

these factors, the record may be reviewed independently on appeal for abuse of discretion.

Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. 

These factors do not favor Plaintiff. The interests in judicial economy reflected in the

first two factors have significant weight favoring dismissal of the action. On the third factor,

there is no risk of prejudice to Defendant by dismissal, which he already sought in a motion

for summary judgment. The fourth factor of favoring disposition of cases on their merits

weighs in favor of Plaintiff but only slightly so because Plaintiff has apparently lost interest

in prosecuting his action. For the fifth factor, there no less drastic sanction than dismissal

without prejudice, as the Court could alternately rule on the merits of the motion for

summary judgment that is unrebutted and Plaintiff cannot be contacted under these

circumstances. Thus, the five-factor analysis weighs in favor of dismissal. Because Plaintiff

has failed to prosecute this action, the Court will dismiss his action without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED that the Complaint and this action are dismissed without prejudice.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment (dkt. #14) is denied as moot.

DATED this 12th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-00633-DGC-ECV Document 21 Filed 06/14/06 Page 3 of 3