Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02608/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02608-1/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 RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gilbert Raymond Olea, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2608-PHX-MHM (JRI)

ORDER

On October 31, 2006, Plaintiff Gilbert Raymond Olea, formerly confined in the

Maricopa County Towers Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint (Doc. #1) pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff did not pay the $350.00 civil action filing fee but filed an uncertified

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis that did not include a copy of his trust account

statement for the six-month period preceding the filing of the Complaint.

By Order filed November 20, 2006 (Doc. #3), Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis was denied and Plaintiff was given 30 days from the filing date of the Order

to either pay the $350.00 filing fee or file a completed Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis and a six-month trust account statement.

On November 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed an new, uncertified Application to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis (Doc. #5), which included a copy of his Inmate Account Statement.

Plaintiff's new Application to Proceed was deficient because the "Certificate Of Correctional

Official As To Status Of Applicant’s Trust Account" section of the Application to Proceed

Case 2:06-cv-02608-MHM--JRI Document 9 Filed 08/08/07 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 -

had not been completed. Accordingly, by Order filed December 11, 2006 (Doc. #6),

Plaintiff's Application to Proceed was denied without prejudice and Plaintiff was given 30

days to either pay the $350.00 filing fee or file a new Application to Proceed and a six-month

trust account statement.

On December 29, 2006, Plaintiff filed a new Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (Doc. #7) and a six-month trust account statement. 

I. Failure to Notify Court of Current Address

While he was confined in the Maricopa County Towers Jail, Plaintiff filed three civil

actions in this Court, including the instant action (CV 06-2536-PHX-MHM (JRI), CV 06-

2608-PHX-MHM (JRI), and CV 06-2851-PHX-MHM (JRI)). Two civil actions that he filed

in the District of Columbia were also transferred to this Court (CV 06-3086-PHX-MHM

(JRI) and CV 07-169-PHX-MHM (JRI)). On May 23, 2007, the Court filed an Order in CV

06-3086-PHX-MHM (JRI) (Doc. #10). On May 24, 2007, the Court also filed an Order in

CV 07-169-PHX-MHM (JRI) (Doc. #10). Copies of both Orders were mailed by the Clerk

of Court to Plaintiff at his last known address at the Maricopa County Towers Jail. The

envelopes containing the copies of the Orders were both returned to the Clerk of Court with

the notations “Returned To Sender" and "Not in Custody." Judgments of dismissal have

subsequently been entered in both CV 06-3086-PHX-MHM (JRI) and CV 07-169-PHXMHM (JRI) for failure to comply with the Court’s Orders.

On March 7, 2007, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Address Change” in all five of his cases

notifying the Court that he had been sentenced to the Arizona Department of Corrections,

that he did not know where he would be sent or housed, and that upon reaching his new

address he would inform this Court. Since then, almost five months have elapsed and

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

of his whereabouts. Accordingly, the Court has been unable to proceed in any of his

remaining three cases. 

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

Case 2:06-cv-02608-MHM--JRI Document 9 Filed 08/08/07 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 -

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.”

Also, in its Notice of Assignment (Doc. #2) 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." One of the rules listed was that "[y]ou must file a Notice of

Change of Address if your address changes."

II. 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 appraised 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

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

Case 2:06-cv-02608-MHM--JRI Document 9 Filed 08/08/07 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 -

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 and Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Doc. #7) will be denied as moot. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #7) is denied as

moot.

//

//

//

//

Case 2:06-cv-02608-MHM--JRI Document 9 Filed 08/08/07 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 -

(2) The Complaint (Doc. #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 Court must enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 6th day of August, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02608-MHM--JRI Document 9 Filed 08/08/07 Page 5 of 5