Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_15-cv-08048/USCOURTS-azd-3_15-cv-08048-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alejandro Quintana,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Unknown Tariq, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-15-08048-PCT-SRB (ESW)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

JUDGE:

On April 6, 2015, while incarcerated, Plaintiff Alejandro Quintana initiated this 

pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). The Court granted 

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered Plaintiff to return a

service packet for Defendants to the Court by September 23, 2015 (21 days from the 

date the Order was filed). (Doc. 12). Plaintiff failed to timely return the service packet. 

On October 22, 2015, the Court ordered that by November 4, 2015 Plaintiff shall (i) 

return the completed service packet as previously ordered or (ii) show cause why this 

case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order was returned to the 

Clerk of Court with the notations “inmate no longer in custody” and “unable to 

forward.” (Doc. 15). As of the date of this Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has 

not filed a notice of a change of address.

Case 3:15-cv-08048-SRB Document 16 Filed 11/23/15 Page 1 of 3
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

A federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for 

failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). 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 v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (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).

While the fourth factor above weighs against dismissal of this case, factors one 

through three above favor dismissal. Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court informed of 

his address and timely serve Defendants prevents this case from proceeding. In 

addition, the Court warned Plaintiff that the Court may dismiss his case for failure to 

file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule 83.3(d) of the 

Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Regarding the fifth factor, the undersigned finds that 

dismissing the case with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh given the availability 

of the less drastic sanction of dismissal without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) 

(dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as an adjudication upon the merits “[u]nless 

the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies”). 

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure.

- 2 -

Case 3:15-cv-08048-SRB Document 16 Filed 11/23/15 Page 2 of 3
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 

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) 

should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. The parties shall have 

fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to 

file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

6, 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the 

objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the 

District Court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the 

Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the 

findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s 

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

Dated this 20th day of November, 2015.

- 3 - 

Case 3:15-cv-08048-SRB Document 16 Filed 11/23/15 Page 3 of 3