Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01477/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01477-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

ALBERTO TORRES, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CIV 09-01477 PHX ROS MEA

)

v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

) FOR DISMISSAL

CITY OF PHOENIX, CITY OF ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE

PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT, )

ERIC BOARDMAN, DANIEL ADAIR, )

)

Defendants. )

_______________________________)

TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER:

Plaintiff filed his complaint on July 16, 2009. On

July 31, 2009, Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and the Court ordered Plaintiff to complete and return

a service packet for Defendant to the Court by August 20, 2009.

That order warned Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply

with the provisions of the order would result in the dismissal

of the complaint. 

Plaintiff returned service packets to the Court,

Defendants were served and answered the complaint, and a

scheduling order issued on December 12, 2009. Defendants

noticed Plaintiff’s deposition on March 31, 2010. The deadline

for completing discovery in this matter was June 8, 2010.

The civil docket in this matter indicates that

Plaintiff has not engaged in any activity with regard to his

Case 2:09-cv-01477-ROS Document 16 Filed 07/13/10 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-

case since the Court filed its scheduling order on December 11,

2009. The Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona provide that “cases which have had

no proceedings for six (6) or more months may be dismissed by

the Court for want of prosecution. Notice shall be given to the

parties that such action is contemplated, and a status hearing

shall be scheduled where the parties may show good cause why

such action should not be taken.” Local Civil Rule 41.1, United

States District Court for the District of Arizona. On June 22,

2010, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this matter

should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute his claims.

The Order to Show Cause was returned as undeliverable. 

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.

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

Case 2:09-cv-01477-ROS Document 16 Filed 07/13/10 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-

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

informed of his address prevents the case from proceeding in the

foreseeable future. The fourth factor, as always, weighs

Case 2:09-cv-01477-ROS Document 16 Filed 07/13/10 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-

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 RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to Rule

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

dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to serve the

Defendant in this matter and for Plaintiff’s failure to comply

with the Court’s orders.

DATED this 12th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01477-ROS Document 16 Filed 07/13/10 Page 4 of 4