Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02747/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02747-0/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

ADAM DEL CAMPO, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIV 05-02747 PHX SMM MEA

)

JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, CAPTAIN ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL

PETERSON, ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE

) 

 Defendants. )

_______________________________)

Plaintiff, while an inmate at the Maricopa County

Durango Jail in Phoenix, Arizona, filed a pro se complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 8, 2005. On March 16,

2006, the Court issued an order directing monthly payments be

made from Plaintiff’s inmate account and sent a copy of the

payment order to Plaintiff. The Court’s order also required

Plaintiff to complete and return a service packet for Defendant

to the Court by April 5, 2006. 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 civil docket in

this matter indicates that Plaintiff never returned a service

packet for Defendants to the Court. The order was not returned

to the Court as undeliverable.

Case 2:05-cv-02747-SMM-MEA Document 7 Filed 10/02/06 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

1 Because Plaintiff was released from custody, Plaintiff is

obligated to pay the filing fee for his section 1983 action within one

month of being released from custody. 

-2-

Plaintiff was warned that his failure to acquire a

waiver of service from Defendants or to complete service of

process on Defendants within 60 days of the date that the

service order was filed, i.e., by May 15, 2006, would result in

the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 4(m), Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 16.2(b)(2)(B), of the United

States District Court for the District of Arizona Local Rules of

Civil Procedure. On May 17, 2006, the Court ordered Plaintiff

to show cause why his case should not be for Plaintiff’s failure

to comply with the Court’s order of March 16, 2006, and

Plaintiff’s failure to effect service of process on Defendants

as required by the Court’s order of March 16, 2006, and Rule 4,

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Order to Show Cause was

returned to the Court as undeliverable. See Docket No. 6.

Plaintiff was apparently released from the custody of

the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department prior to May 22, 2006.1

See Docket No. 6. Plaintiff has not provided the Court with his

current address.

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

Case 2:05-cv-02747-SMM-MEA Document 7 Filed 10/02/06 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-

address. Failure to notify the court of any change in your

mailing address may result in the dismissal of your case.” 

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

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.

Case 2:05-cv-02747-SMM-MEA Document 7 Filed 10/02/06 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-

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

Case 2:05-cv-02747-SMM-MEA Document 7 Filed 10/02/06 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-

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 ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 41(b)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure this action is dismissed

without prejudice and the Clerk of the Court shall enter

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 29th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02747-SMM-MEA Document 7 Filed 10/02/06 Page 5 of 5