Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00640/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00640-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

FRANCISCO JAVIER MORENO

CISNEROS, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

J. MERCADO, D. COLE, 

M. GUERRERO,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-640-PHX-MHM (MEA)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, while an inmate at the Florence Correctional

Center, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on

March 27, 2007. On June 19, 2007, the Court issued an order

directing monthly payments be made from Plaintiff’s inmate

account and sent a copy of the payment order to Plaintiff. The

Court’s order also required Plaintiff to complete and return a

service packet for Defendants to the Court by July 9, 2007.

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. The Court’s June 19 order was mailed to Plaintiff at

the address stated on his complaint, and was returned to the

Court as undeliverable. 

Case 2:07-cv-00640-MHM-MEA Document 10 Filed 08/02/07 Page 1 of 4
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-

Plaintiff filed a change of address notification with the

Court on June 20, 2007. On July 5, 2007, the Court ordered the

Clerk of the Court to mail a copy of the Court’s screening and

service order of June 19, 2007, to Plaintiff at the address

stated on the notification filed June 9, 2007. The Clerk did so

and the order was returned to the Court again as undeliverable.

Plaintiff has not provided the Court with his current address,

and Plaintiff never returned a service packet to the Court. The

Court has been and is unable to contact Plaintiff and to collect

the filing fee in this matter.

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

Case 2:07-cv-00640-MHM-MEA Document 10 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 4
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-

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.” 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.

Case 2:07-cv-00640-MHM-MEA Document 10 Filed 08/02/07 Page 3 of 4
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-

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 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 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. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure this action is dismissed

without prejudice and the Clerk of the Court shall enter

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 2nd day of August, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00640-MHM-MEA Document 10 Filed 08/02/07 Page 4 of 4