Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03261/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03261-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Clerk of Court mailed the service packet to Plaintiff at 822 S. Montezuma Street

#4, Phoenix, AZ 85003.

- 1 -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Manuel Hernandez-Reyes,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3261-PHX-FJM (HCE)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On October 17, 2005, Plaintiff, who was at that time incarcerated at the Tent City Jail

in Maricopa County, filed the instant pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A. RETURNED MAIL

On December 2, 2005, the Court entered an order directing, inter alia, the Clerk of

Court to mail a service packet to Plaintiff and directing Plaintiff to return the completed

service packet to the Court. On March 1, 2006, Plaintiff returned the service packet to the

Court. On March 2, 2006, the Clerk of Court returned the service packet to Plaintiff because

it was incomplete. The docket reflects that the Clerk of Court sent the service packet "to

address on envelope,"1

 (hereinafter "the Montezuma Street address") which was a different

Case 2:05-cv-03261-FJM-HCE Document 7 Filed 06/01/06 Page 1 of 5
- 2 -

address from that of the jail listed on Plaintiff's Complaint. On March 20, 2006, Plaintiff

returned the service packet but it was still incomplete. On March 22, 2006 the Clerk of Court

once again mailed the service packet with instructions for completion to Plaintiff at the

Montezuma Street address. On March 29, 2006, that envelope and its contents were

returned to the Clerk of Court with the following notation: "ATTEMPTED, NOT

KNOWN." (Doc. No. 6) (emphasis in original) The docket reflects that "Service packet

returned to plaintiff for completion. Reason for return: Attempted, Not Known. Research

conducted, no other address found." (Id.) 

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. 

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 October 17, 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 December 2, 2005 Order advised Plaintiff that: "at 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-03261-FJM-HCE Document 7 Filed 06/01/06 Page 2 of 5
- 3 -

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." (December 2, 2005 Order,

p.6)

B. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

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

Case 2:05-cv-03261-FJM-HCE Document 7 Filed 06/01/06 Page 3 of 5
- 4 -

v. Johnson, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990).

Here, the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. The return

address on the envelope Plaintiff used to send the service packet to the Court was different

from the address listed on Plaintiff's Complaint and the record reflects that Plaintiff has never

filed a formal Notice of Change of Address. Nonetheless, the Clerk of Court revised the

docket to reflect the Montezuma Street address as Plaintiff's current mailing address and

Plaintiff was later successfully contacted at that address. Now, Plaintiff cannot be contacted

at the Montezuma Street address. 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 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. 

C. 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 05-3261-PHX- FJM.

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

Case 2:05-cv-03261-FJM-HCE Document 7 Filed 06/01/06 Page 4 of 5
- 5 -

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).

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail this Report and Recommendation to

Plaintiff at: (1) his address of record, i.e. the Montezuma Street address; and (2) Tent City

Jail 2939 W. Durango, Phoenix, AZ 85009, which is the address listed on his Complaint.

DATED this 31st day of May, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03261-FJM-HCE Document 7 Filed 06/01/06 Page 5 of 5