Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01876/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01876-3/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

Delano Danny Quiroz, Jr.,

)

Plaintiff, ) CIV 13-01876 PHX DLR MEA

)

v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

) FOR DISMISSAL

Phoenix Police Department, ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Russel Frederiksen, )

) 

Defendants. )

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS L. RAYES:

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his complaint on

September 11, 2013, while incarcerated at the Fourth Avenue Jail

in Phoenix, Arizona. In an order issued November 4, 2013, the

Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

Plaintiff docketed a first amended complaint on December 4,

2013. See Doc. 7. In an order entered February 12, 2014, the

Court dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to amend.

See Doc. 8. Plaintiff docketed a second amended complaint on

March 26, 2014. See Doc. 9. At the top of the complaint under

Plaintiff’s address, which he indicated was at the Fourth Avenue

Jail, the printed complaint form states: “(Failure to notify the

Court of your change of address may result in dismissal of this

action.)”

 

Case 2:13-cv-01876-DLR Document 16 Filed 07/10/14 Page 1 of 5
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-

Rule 3.4, Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United

States District Court for the District of Arizona requires

prisoner-litigants to comply with instructions attached to the

Court-approved complaint form for use in section 1983 actions.

Those instructions provide: “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.” 

A note in the docket in this matter entered May 8,

2014, indicates Plaintiff was no longer incarcerated at the

Fourth Avenue Jail and an inmate filing fee was not collected.

In an order (Doc. 10) issued June 11, 2014, screening

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, the Court dismissed

Defendant Phoenix Police Department and ordered Plaintiff to

return a service packet for Defendant Frederiksen to the Court

within 21 days and ordered Defendant Frederiksen to answer

Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force. That order warned

Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply with the provisions

of the order would result in the dismissal of the complaint

pursuant to Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The Court’s service order at Doc. 10 warned Plaintiff:

Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance of the

filing fee within 120 days of his release.

Also, within 30 days of his release, he must

either (1) notify the Court that he intends

to pay the balance or (2) show good cause, in

writing, why he cannot. Failure to comply may

result in dismissal of this action. 

B. Address Changes Plaintiff must file and

serve a notice of a change of address in

accordance with Rule 83.3(d) of the Local

Rules of Civil Procedure. .... Failure to

comply may result in dismissal of this

action.

Case 2:13-cv-01876-DLR Document 16 Filed 07/10/14 Page 2 of 5
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-

***

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with

every provision of this Order, including

these warnings, the Court may dismiss this

action without further notice. See Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.

1992) (a district court may dismiss an action

for failure to comply with any order of the

Court).

The copy of the service order at Doc. 10 mailed to

Plaintiff was returned to the Court as undeliverable on June 23,

2014. See Doc. 11. On June 30, 2014, the matter was reassigned

and on July 1, 2014, the matter was reassigned and both notices

of reassignment mailed to Plaintiff were returned as

undeliverable. Plaintiff did not return a service packet to the

Court for Defendant Frederiksen by July 1, 2014.

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

move for dismissal of an action.” In Link v. Wabash Railroad

Case 2:13-cv-01876-DLR Document 16 Filed 07/10/14 Page 3 of 5
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-

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

against dismissal. The fifth factor requires the Court to

consider whether a less drastic alternative is available.

Case 2:13-cv-01876-DLR Document 16 Filed 07/10/14 Page 4 of 5
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

-5-

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.

DATED this 10th day of July, 2014.

Case 2:13-cv-01876-DLR Document 16 Filed 07/10/14 Page 5 of 5