Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03383/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03383-0/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

John B. Patterson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-3383-PHX-SMM (LOA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter arises on the Court’s review of the file. Plaintiff commenced this action on

October 25, 2005. (document # 1) On March 24, 2006, the Court ordered service on Defendant

and ordered Plaintiff to file a completed service packet by April 13, 2006. (document # 3) The

also Court directed Plaintiff to immediately notify the Court in writing of any change in his

address and warned Plaintiff that failure to do so could result in dismissal of this action. (Id.)

Additionally, LRCiv 83.3(d) obligates Plaintiff to immediately notify the Court in writing of

any change in address. 

Thereafter, on April 5, 2006, the Court received returned mail addressed to Plaintiff

marked "undeliverable, released." No alternate address for Plaintiff was found. (document #

5) Plaintiff violated the Court's Order by failing to advise the Court of his new address. In view

of Plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause on

or before May 20, 2006 why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure

to comply with Court orders. (document # 6)

Case 2:05-cv-03383-SMM Document 8 Filed 05/31/06 Page 1 of 2
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 -

Thereafter, on April 26, 2006, the Court again received returned mail addressed to

Plaintiff marked "return to sender." (document # 7) To date, Plaintiff has neither responded

to the show-cause order nor notified the Court of his current address leaving the Court with no

means to contact Plaintiff regarding this matter. In view of Plaintiff's continued failure to advise

the Court of his current address in violation of Court orders, this matter should be dismissed.

See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that district court did not abuse

its discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff's complaint for failure to advise the court of his

current mailing address).

In view of the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED without prejudice

for failure to comply with Court orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court=s judgment. The parties shall

have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file

specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a),

6(e). Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a response to the objections.

Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may

result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further

review. See United States v. Reyna- Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge

will be considered a waiver of a party=s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an

order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge=s recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72.

DATED this 30th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03383-SMM Document 8 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 2