Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00968/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00968-0/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

Christopher Sanfie, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-0968-PHX-DGC (LOA)

ORDER

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

March 30, 2005. Dkt. # 1. On June 7, 2005, the Court ordered service on Defendant and ordered

Plaintiff to file a completed service packet by June 27, 2005. Dkt. # 5.

Although the deadline for returning the completed service packet passed, Plaintiff neither

returned a completed service packet to the Court nor otherwise effected service on Defendant. Plaintiff

has taken no action in this case since April of 2005. The Court therefore ordered Plaintiff to show

cause why this matter should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Court orders

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), for failure to serve pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), and for failure to

prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and LRCiv 41.1(providing that a case which has "had no

proceedings for six (6) or more months may be dismissed by the Court for want of prosecution."). Dkt.

# 7. 

On March 21, 2007, the Court received returned mail addressed to Plaintiff marked "released."

Case 2:05-cv-00968-DGC-LOA Document 9 Filed 04/09/07 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. # 8. Plaintiff has failed to notified the Court of his current address. 

Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Pioche

Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). A plaintiff who has filed a pro se action

must keep the Court apprized of his or her current address and comply with the Court's orders in a

timely fashion. The Court does not have an affirmative obligation to locate Plaintiff. "A party, not the

district court, bears the burden of keeping the court apprized 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. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this matter.

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; (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)). Here,

the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiff's failure to keep the Court

informed of his address and failure to respond to Court orders 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 has already ordered Plaintiff

Case 2:05-cv-00968-DGC-LOA Document 9 Filed 04/09/07 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 -

to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed. Plaintiff has not responded to the Court and,

in view of Plaintiff's failure to advise the Court of his current address, the Court has no means of

communicating with Plaintiff. 

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

41.1.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and LRCiv 41.1 this action is dismissed without prejudice and the Clerk of the Court shall

enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 9th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-00968-DGC-LOA Document 9 Filed 04/09/07 Page 3 of 3