Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00683/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00683-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Charles Romero, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Unknown Jurca, et al.

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 13-0683-PHX-RCB (SPL)

O R D E R

Plaintiff Charles Romero, a county jail inmate, filed this civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 on April 4, 2013 (Doc. 1). Later that day, the Clerk of Court issued a notice

of assignment (Doc. 4). The notice was returned in the mail on April 15 (Doc. 5). Plaintiff

has yet to submit a notice of change of address. Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil

Procedure requires Plaintiff to file a notice of change of address 10 days before the move is

effective. Also, Plaintiff was informed in the instructions accompanying the form complaint

that he must immediately inform the Clerk of Court of a change of address or face possible

dismissal. Plaintiff has not complied with these requirements. 

“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 order Plaintiff to show cause why dismissal was not warranted,

the Order “would only find itself taking a round trip through the United States mail.” Id.

The Court is similarly not required to hold the matter in abeyance in hopes that an

address change will be forthcoming. “It would be absurd to require the district court to hold

Case 2:13-cv-00683-RCB--SPL Document 6 Filed 05/28/13 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 -

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.” Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441. Because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action, see

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice. 

IT IS ORDERED that the Complaint and this action are DISMISSED without

prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. 

DATED this 23rd day of May, 2013.

Case 2:13-cv-00683-RCB--SPL Document 6 Filed 05/28/13 Page 2 of 2