Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04167/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04167-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

- 1 -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Raymond G. Musgrove,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-4167-PHX-SRB (HCE)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

On December 20, 2005, Plaintiff, filed the instant pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 9, 2006, the Court entered an order directing, inter alia, the Clerk of

Court to mail a service packet to Plaintiff. The Court's January 9, 2006 Order also directed

Plaintiff to return the completed service packet to the Court within twenty days and warned

Plaintiff that his failure to either obtain a waiver of service or to otherwise effect service

within 120 days of the filing date of the complaint or within 60 days of the filing of the

Order, whichever was later, may result in dismissal. The January 9, 2006 Order and service

packet were mailed on that same date to Plaintiff at his address of record. 

Case 2:05-cv-04167-SRB Document 7 Filed 06/15/06 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

On June 1, 2006, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause why this action

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute in light of the fact that Plaintiff had not

returned the service packet to the Court within the deadline, had not requested an extension

of that deadline, had not obtained a waiver of service from Defendant, and had not served

Defendant with the Complaint and Summons within the Court-ordered deadline. On June 14,

2006, the envelope containing the Court's June 1, 2006 Order was returned to the Court with

the following notation: "return to sender...release." (Doc. No. 6) 

Plaintiff has not filed a Notice of Change of Address nor has Plaintiff filed any other

document notifying the Court of his whereabouts and/or that he intends to prosecute this

action. Plaintiff has filed no documents in this action since December 20, 2005. 

Local Rule Civil 3.4(a), Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District

of Arizona, requires that an incarcerated litigant comply with the instructions attached to the

Court-approved Complaint form. Those instructions state: “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.” (Information

and Instructions for a Prisoner Filing Civil Rights Complaint at 2).

In the Notice of Assignment, sent to Plaintiff on December 21, 2005, the Court

warned Plaintiff that "[f]ailure to comply with the following rules will result in your

document being STRUCK and/or your case being DISMISSED." (Notice at 1). One of the

rules listed was that "[y]ou must file a Notice of Change of Address if your address changes."

(Id.).

Additionally, the Court's January 9, 2006 Order advised Plaintiff that: "[a]t all times

during the pendency of this action, Plaintiff shall immediately advise the Court and the

United States Marshal of any change of address and its effective date. Such notice shall be

captioned “NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.” The notice shall contain only

information pertaining to the change of address and its effective date...Failure to file a Notice

of Change of Address may result in the dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute

Case 2:05-cv-04167-SRB Document 7 Filed 06/15/06 Page 2 of 4
- 3 -

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." (January 9, 2006 Order, p.6)

II. DISCUSSION

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, it is the

duty of a plaintiff who has filed a pro se action to keep the Court apprised of his or her

current address and to comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. This Court does

not have an affirmative obligation to locate Plaintiff. “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). 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 “[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.” The U.S. Supreme Court has 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. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962).

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 his 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 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).

Case 2:05-cv-04167-SRB Document 7 Filed 06/15/06 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

Here, the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiff’s failure

to keep the Court informed of his address or to actively participate in this case 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 bound to

be futile. In the instant case, 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.

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, a dismissal with

prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh as the Complaint and this action can be dismissed

without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

III. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court

dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure for failure to prosecute.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), any party may serve and file written objections within

10 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. If objections

are filed, the parties should use the following case number: CV 05-4167-PHX-SRB. 

If objections are not timely filed, then the parties' right to de novo review by the

District Court may be deemed waived. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003).

DATED this 14th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-04167-SRB Document 7 Filed 06/15/06 Page 4 of 4