Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08127/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08127-0/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

Ronald James Mitchell,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Dedman, Jr., et al, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-8127-PCT-JAT (LOA)

ORDER

This matter arises on the Court’s review. Plaintiff commenced this action on July 28,

2009. (docket # 1) On August 13, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status.

(docket # 4) The Court also directed Plaintiff to 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.) Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.3(d) also requires Plaintiff to notify the Court in writing

of any change in address “within seven (7) days after the effective date of the change.” Id. On

January 15 and 25, 2010, the Court received returned mail addressed to Plaintiff marked

“Return to sender. Not deliverable as Addressed. Unable to forward.” (dockets # 12, # 14)

Plaintiff has not provided notice of any change in his address. 

In view of Plaintiff’s failure to provide notice of his current address, the Court will

consider whether to dismiss this case. 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). In this regard, 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. This Court

Case 3:09-cv-08127-JAT Document 15 Filed 02/01/10 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 -

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.

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails

to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss

the action or any claim against it.” 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)). “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 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 keep the Court informed of his address 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. Without Plaintiff’s current

address, however, certain alternatives are futile. Here, as in Carey, “[a]n order to show cause

why dismissal is not warranted or an order imposing sanctions would only find itself taking a

round trip tour through the United States mail.” 856 F.2d at 1441. 

Case 3:09-cv-08127-JAT Document 15 Filed 02/01/10 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 -

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 dismissal order states otherwise.” 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. 

Accordingly,

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

Procedure, this action is dismissed without prejudice and the Clerk of Court shall enter

judgment accordingly (the motion to dismiss (Doc. #11) is denied, without prejudice, as moot).

DATED this 1st day of February, 2010.

 

Case 3:09-cv-08127-JAT Document 15 Filed 02/01/10 Page 3 of 3