Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03227/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03227-0/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 KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Toribio Hernandez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-3227-PHX-NVW (MEA)

ORDER

On October 14, 2005, Plaintiff Toribio Hernandez, formerly confined in the Maricopa

County Durango Jail, filed a Civil Rights Complaint by a Prisoner ("Complaint") pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("Application to

Proceed").

Returned Mail

On October 14, 2005, the Court filed a "Notice Of Assignment" (Notice), which

assigned this action to the undersigned Judge. A copy of the Notice was mailed by the Clerk

of Court to Plaintiff at his last known address at the Durango Jail on October 18, 2005. On

October 31, 2005, the Notice of Assignment was returned to the Court as undeliverable.

Plaintiff has failed to file a Notice of Change of Address, or to in any way notify the Court

Case 2:05-cv-03227-NVW--MEA Document 4 Filed 11/14/05 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

1

The website of the Maricopa County Sheriff does not show Plaintiff as being in the current

custody of the Maricopa Sheriff. Also, the website of the Arizona Department of Corrections

(ADOC) does not show Plaintiff as being in the current custody of the ADOC.

- 2 -

of his whereabouts. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court has been unable to remail the copy

of the Notice to Plaintiff.1

Rule 3.4(a) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure requires that an incarcerated litigant

comply with the instructions attached to the Court-approved Complaint form. Those

instructions state: “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.” (Information and Instructions for a Prisoner Filing Civil

Rights Complaint at 2).

Also, in its Notice the Court warned Plaintiff that "[f]ailure to comply with the

following rules will result in your document being STRUCK and/or your case being

DISMISSED." (Notice at 1). One of the rules listed was that "[y]ou must file a Notice of

Change of Address if your address changes." (Notice at 1).

Failure to Prosecute

Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co.

v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, 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 or her

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 Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31

(1962), the Supreme Court recognized that a federal district court has the inherent power to

Case 2:05-cv-03227-NVW--MEA Document 4 Filed 11/14/05 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 -

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. 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. 

. . .

Case 2:05-cv-03227-NVW--MEA Document 4 Filed 11/14/05 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 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the “Civil Rights Complaint By A Prisoner”

(Document #1) and this action are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule

41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute, and the Clerk of the

Court is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly.

DATED this 10th day of November, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-03227-NVW--MEA Document 4 Filed 11/14/05 Page 4 of 4