Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08178/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08178-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael James Rich,

)

Plaintiff, ) CIV 10-08178 PCT JWS MEA

)

v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

) FOR DISMISSAL

Wexford Health Sources, Inc., )

Dr. Stonecipher, )

Ronald Williams, )

) 

Defendants. )

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE JOHN W. SEDWICK:

Plaintiff, who was then pro se, filed his complaint on

September 17, 2010, while incarcerated at the Arizona State

Prison Complex in Buckeye, Arizona. On January 7, 2011, the

Court ordered Plaintiff to complete and return a service packet

for Defendant Wexford Health Sources to the Court. That order

warned Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply with the

provisions of the order would result in the dismissal of the

complaint pursuant to Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Plaintiff later identified as defendants and

effected service on Defendant Stonecipher and Defendant

Williams.

Case 3:10-cv-08178-JWS Document 60 Filed 09/04/13 Page 1 of 6
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-

The Court’s service order at Doc. 8 warned Plaintiff:

Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance of the

filing fee within 120 days of his release.

Also, within 30 days of his release, he must

either (1) notify the Court that he intends

to pay the balance or (2) show good cause, in

writing, why he cannot. Failure to comply may

result in dismissal of this action. 

***

Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a

change of address in accordance with Rule

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil

Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a

motion for other relief with a notice of

change of address. Failure to comply may

result in dismissal of this action.

***

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with

every provision of this Order, including

these warnings, the Court may dismiss this

action without further notice. See Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.

1992) (a district court may dismiss an action

for failure to comply with any order of the

Court).

On December 19, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to

dismiss, which was denied on May 2, 2012. On May 4, 2012, the

Court issued a scheduling order requiring discovery be completed

by October 12, 2012, and that dispositive motions be filed by

December 21, 2012. Defendants Wilkinson and Payne were added as

defendants and these defendants answered the complaint on August

21, 2012.

Plaintiff noticed a change of address, indicating he

was released from prison, on September 12, 2012, and counsel for

Plaintiff entered an appearance on September 19, 2012, and on

October 2, 2012. The remainder of the filing fee was paid on

July 20, 2012. See Doc. 31.

On October 12, 2012, Plaintiff sought an extension of

the time to complete discovery and file dispositive motions, and

Case 3:10-cv-08178-JWS Document 60 Filed 09/04/13 Page 2 of 6
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-

on November 30, 2012, the Court allowed the parties until

September 1, 2013, to complete discovery and until September 15,

2013, to file dispositive motions. 

On November 19, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for

summary judgment. On March 21, 2012, the Court granted in part

and denied in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The

Court dismissed Count I with prejudice, regarding Plaintiff’s

treatment to his left big toe, and denied the motion with regard

to Count II, regarding treatment for his right foot. 

On April 12, 2013, the Court granted Attorney Richard

D. Lyons’ motion to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff,

based on the fact that Mr. Lyons was no longer employed by

Gillespie, Shields & Durrant. Mr. Lyons stated in his motion to

withdraw: “Gillespie, Shields & Durrant has expressed a desire

to continue representing Plaintiffs as co-counsel with other

attorneys and is actively seeking co-counsel in that regard.”

Doc. 53.

 In the order granting the motion to withdraw the Court

ordered that Plaintiff inform the Court as to whether Gillespie,

Shields & Durrant would continue to represent Plaintiff or if he

wished to proceed pro se. That order was mailed to Plaintiff at

his last known address: 

Mr. Michael Rich

4210 North Longview Avenue

Phoenix, Arizona 85014

The order mailed to Plaintiff was returned as

undeliverable. See Doc. 55.

Accordingly, on August 8, 2013, the Magistrate Judge

issued an order directed to Dan Durrant of the law firm

Case 3:10-cv-08178-JWS Document 60 Filed 09/04/13 Page 3 of 6
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

-4-

Gillespie, Shields & Durrant, pursuant to his appearance as

counsel of record for Plaintiff at Doc. 37. The Court gave Mr.

Durrant until August 23, 2013, to notify the Court whether he

continues to represent Plaintiff or to move the Court to

withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff. Mr. Durrant did

not respond to the order and the copy of the order sent to

Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable.

 Rule 3.4, Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United

States District Court for the District of Arizona requires

prisoner-litigants to comply with instructions attached to the

Court-approved complaint form for use in section 1983 actions.

Those instructions provide: “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.” 

Plaintiff has a general duty to prosecute this case.

Fidelity Phila. Trust Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., 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 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.

Case 3:10-cv-08178-JWS Document 60 Filed 09/04/13 Page 4 of 6
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

-5-

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)). “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

Case 3:10-cv-08178-JWS Document 60 Filed 09/04/13 Page 5 of 6
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

-6-

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. 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.

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 concludes that a

dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to Rule

41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this action be

dismissed without prejudice.

DATED this 4th day of September, 2013.

Case 3:10-cv-08178-JWS Document 60 Filed 09/04/13 Page 6 of 6