Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00296/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00296-1/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

SRM

- 1 -

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rodrick Lynn Johnson,

Plaintiff

-vsJoseph M Arpaio,

Defendant(s)

CV-06-0296-PHX-SMM (JI)

ORDER

Plaintiff filed a pro se Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on

January 25, 2006. (#1). In the Notice of Assignment entered and mailed to Plaintiff on

January 25, 2006, Plaintiff was warned he must file a Notice of Change of Address if his

address changes and that failure to comply would result in his case being dismissed. (#2).

It is assumed this Notice was received by Plaintiff as it was not returned as undeliverable.

However, the Court Order filed August 25, 2006 (#11) was returned as undeliverable with

the notation that Plaintiff was released from custody (# 12). Plaintiff has not filed a change

of address.

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

Case 2:06-cv-00296-SMM-JRI Document 13 Filed 10/03/06 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

- 2 -

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

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

Case 2:06-cv-00296-SMM-JRI Document 13 Filed 10/03/06 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

- 3 -

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

In the meantime, Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss (#8) the complaint for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies, to which Plaintiff has failed to respond. That

motion seeks a dismissal with prejudice. However, plaintiff has not yet responded to the

motion. Rather than resolving the matter by default, a dismissal without prejudice for failure

to prosecute seems more just.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the reference of this case to the magistrate

judge is WITHDRAWN, including the reference of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, filed

July 5, 2006 (#8).

IT IS FURTHER 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.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, filed July 5, 2006

(#8) is DENIED as moot.

DATED this 27th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00296-SMM-JRI Document 13 Filed 10/03/06 Page 3 of 3