Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01592/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01592-0/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 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Michael Soule,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio,

Defendant. ___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV07-1592-PHX-PGR (JCG)

REPORT 

& RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff filed a pro se Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. No. 1) pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 on August 17, 2007. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff has been authorized to

proceed In Forma Pauperis, and the court has directed monthly payments to be

withdrawn from his prison account.

On September 28, 2007, the Court entered an order directing the Clerk of the

Court to mail a service packet to the Plaintiff, due for return to the Court on October

18, 2007. (Doc. No. 6). The docket indicates that the Clerk of Court mailed the order

and service packet accordingly. To date Plaintiff has failed to return a completed

service packet, to obtain waiver of service or to complete service of the Summons and

Complaint on Defendants in this case. 

The order that was mailed to Plaintiff along with the service packet notified

Plaintiff that failure to comply with every provision of the order would result in

dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No.

6). The order contained provisions that required Plaintiff to return the service packet

within 20 days of the date of filing of the order. Plaintiff was also notified that if he

Case 2:07-cv-01592-PGR Document 12 Filed 01/09/08 Page 1 of 3
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 Page 2 of 3

failed to comply with the order, the United States Marshal would not provide service

of process. 

Plaintiff was further notified within the order that he must complete service of

the Summons and Complaint on the Defendants within 120 days of the filing date of

the complaint or within 60 days of the filing of the order, whichever was later. The

order notified Plaintiff that failure to comply with either provision would result in

dismissal of his case. More than 120 days have passed since Plaintiff filed his

complaint, and to date service has not been completed.

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).

Plaintiff’s failure to complete service of the Summons and Complaint on the

Defendants within 120 days of the filing date of the complaint or within 60 days of

the filing of the order constitutes failure to prosecute.

A federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for

failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). 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 v. King, 856

F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (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.

Case 2:07-cv-01592-PGR Document 12 Filed 01/09/08 Page 2 of 3
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 Page 3 of 3

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 serve Defendants, or to actively participate in this case, 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. 

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, a dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily

harsh as the Complaint and this action can be dismissed without prejudice pursuant

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

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule

1.17(d)(2), Rules of Practice of the United States District Court, District of Arizona,

the Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 1) and this

action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), any party may serve and file written objections

within 10 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation.

If objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. The parties are advised

that any objections filed are to be identified with the following case number: 

CV07-1592-PHX-PGR.

DATED this 9th day of January, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01592-PGR Document 12 Filed 01/09/08 Page 3 of 3