Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00728/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00728-0/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

WO JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Vincent Lee Scott, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-0728-PHX-JAT (MHB)

ORDER

Plaintiff, Vincent Lee Scott, filed a pro se Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Doc. #1). The Court will dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Plaintiff filed this action on March 7, 2005 (Doc. #1). Within days of the initial filing,

the Court sent Plaintiff a Notice of Assignment (Doc. #2). Because Plaintiff’s application

to proceed in forma pauperis was deficient, the Court ordered him to pay the filing fee or

submit a proper application (Doc. #3). Plaintiff paid the filing fee, and the Court then

ordered Defendant Arpaio to answer Plaintiff’s claims regarding inadequate meals,

overcrowding, and unsanitary conditions at the county jail (Doc. #7). Defendant moved to

dismiss for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies (Doc. #11). The Court

granted Defendant’s motion in part and dismissed the overcrowding and unsanitary

conditions claims (Doc. #18). 

Case 2:05-cv-00728-JAT-MHB Document 26 Filed 04/24/07 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 -

Defendant then filed a Second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #20). In an Order dated

January 22, 2007, the Court sent Plaintiff notice of that motion and advised of him of his

obligation to respond (Doc. #21). Less than two weeks later, the Order was returned in the

mail (Doc. #22). Approximately one month later, an Order withdrawing the reference to the

Magistrate Judge as to the pending motion was also returned in the mail (Doc. ##24, 25).

Rule 3.4(a) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, requires that a prisoner-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, ¶ H. The Court has no 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) (per curiam).

If the Court were to show cause Plaintiff why dismissal was 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. “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.” Id.

In the Notice of Assignment, the Order addressing the first in forma pauperis

application, and the service Order, the Court warned Plaintiff that he must notify the Court

of any change of address and failure to do so may result in the dismissal of the action for

failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Rule 41(b) 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) appears to require a motion from a party.

Case 2:05-cv-00728-JAT-MHB Document 26 Filed 04/24/07 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 -

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 has not

provided the Court with his present address, and the Court has been receiving returned mail

for over two months. 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. 

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. Because

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the rules and thereby has failed to prosecute this action,

the Court will dismiss his action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

//

//

//

Case 2:05-cv-00728-JAT-MHB Document 26 Filed 04/24/07 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 -

In light of the dismissal under Rule 41(b), the Court need not address the merits of

Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss and it will be denied as moot.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #20) is denied as moot.

(2) Plaintiff’s Complaint and this action are dismissed without prejudice, and the

Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 23rd day of April, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-00728-JAT-MHB Document 26 Filed 04/24/07 Page 4 of 4