Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03259/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03259-0/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

1

 When Plaintiff filed the Complaint, he was confined in the Estrella Jail in Phoenix,

Arizona.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Adam Blain Waddell, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3259-PHX-EHC (BPV)

ORDER

Adam Blain Waddell (Plaintiff), presently in the custody of the Arizona

Department of Corrections, filed with the Clerk of the Court on October 17, 2005, a pro

se "Civil Rights Complaint By A Prisoner" (Dkt. 1) (Complaint) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983.1

 Plaintiff has not paid the two hundred and fifty dollar ($250.00) filing fee, but he

has been authorized to proceed In Forma Pauperis.

On November 15, 2005, the Court entered an order directing the Clerk of the Court

to mail a service packet to the Plaintiff, due for return to the Court on December 8, 2005.

(Dkt. 3). The order and service packet were mailed by the Clerk of Court to Plaintiff at

his last known address at the Estrella Jail on November 18, 2005. On December 5, 2005,

Case 2:05-cv-03259-EHC Document 9 Filed 02/27/06 Page 1 of 2
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 mail was returned to the Clerk of the Court with notations indicating "Return to

Sender," "Unable to Forward," and that Plaintiff was "No Longer In Custody." (Dkt. 6) 

Since then, Plaintiff has failed to file a Notice of Change of Address, or in any way to

notify the Court of his whereabouts. The docket indicates that the Clerk of the Court

researched Plaintiff's address to no avail.

Report & Recommendation

On January 27, 2006, Magistrate Judge Bernardo Velasco recommended that the

case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Court cited Link v.

Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) for the proposition 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. Recommendation, p. 3 (Dkt. 7) (citing Link, 370 U.S. at 633). The

Magistrate Judge applied the five factors articulated in Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,

1441 (9th Cir. 1988) and recommended that the present circumstances warranted

dismissal. The Judge specifically noted that "[h]ere, as in Carey, '[a]n order to show cause

why dismissal is not warranted or an order imposing sanction would only find itself

taking a round trip tour through the United States mail.'" Recommendation, p. 3 (Dkt. 7)

(citing Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441). A copy of the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation was mailed to the Plaintiff. It, too, was returned as undeliverable. 

(Dkt. 8). 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

(Dkt. 7) and dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice for failure to comply

with Rule 3.4, Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the

District of Arizona, and Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 22nd day of February, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03259-EHC Document 9 Filed 02/27/06 Page 2 of 2