Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02393/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02393-1/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

Joshua Lee Scates, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2393-PHX-DGC (BPV)

ORDER

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

dismiss for lack of exhasution. 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 served a notice of change of address to a

different jail (dkt. #3) and a few months later, a notice that he had been moved to yet another

jail (dkt. #4). The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and ordered Defendant Joseph

Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriff, to answer Plaintiff’s claims regarding overcrowding,

unsanitary conditions, and nutritionally-inadequate food. See Dkt. #5.

Defendant then moved to dismiss the action because Plaintiff failed to exhaust

available administrative remedies on any of his claims (dkt. #8). The Court issued the

Case 2:05-cv-02393-DGC-BPV Document 13 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 -

customary warning (dkt. #9) regarding Plaintiff’s obligations in responding to the motion.

This order was returned in the mail on March 27, 2006, as undeliverable (dkt. #10). 

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

the motion to dismiss (dkt. #11). This order, too, was returned as undeliverable (dkt. #20).

Plaintiff has not filed a change of address since December 2005.

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, #4). 

More than six months have elapsed since his last change of address notice filed on

December 5 2005, and now two recent Orders have been returned as undeliverable. “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

Case 2:05-cv-02393-DGC-BPV Document 13 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 -

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

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. As noted in the

Court’s screening Order (dkt. #5 at 1 n.1), this action is one of more than one thousand nearly

identical actions filed by county jail inmates. On the third factor, there is no risk of prejudice

to Defendant by dismissal, which he already sought in his motion. 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 by failing to submit his

address change. For the fifth factor, there no less drastic sanction than dismissal without

prejudice, as the Court could alternately rule on the merits of the unrebutted motion for

dismissal, 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 to dismiss

(dkt. #8) is denied as moot.

DATED this 12th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02393-DGC-BPV Document 13 Filed 06/14/06 Page 3 of 3