Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01590/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01590-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Armando Hernandez, Jr., )

)

Plaintiff, ) CIV 14-01590 PHX DLR MEA

)

v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

) FOR DISMISSAL

Lonnie G. Stone, et al., ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE

) 

Defendants. )

______________________________ )

TO THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS L. RAYES:

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a section 1983

complaint on July 11, 2014, while incarcerated at the Pelican

Bay State Prison in Crescent City, California. Plaintiff

alleged claims arising from his detention in Eloy, Arizona, at

the La Palma Correctional Center, which houses inmates detained

by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

See Doc. 1. Plaintiff also docketed a motion for leave to

proceed in this matter in forma pauperis. On October 23, 2014,

Plaintiff docketed a change of address, with his new address

reported as the California state prison facility in Lancaster,

California. See Doc. 5.

In an order (Doc. 6) entered December 9, 2014, the

Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismissed Defendants Johnson and Ladd without 

Case 2:14-cv-01590-DLR Document 9 Filed 02/11/15 Page 1 of 6
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-

prejudice. The Court ordered Defendants Stone and Sanchez to

answer Counts One, Three, Four, and Six, and ordered Defendant

McDonald to answer Count Three. The Court ordered Plaintiff to

return service packets for Defendants McDonald, Sanchez, and

Stone to the Court by January 2, 2015. 

At the top of the complaint under Plaintiff’s address,

the printed complaint form states: “(Failure to notify the Court

of your change of address may result in dismissal of this

action.)”.

 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 address.

Failure to notify the court of any change in your mailing

address may result in the dismissal of your case.” 

The Court’s service 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 Court’s service order at Doc. 6 warned Plaintiff:

If Plaintiff is released while this case

remains pending, and the filing fee has not

been paid in full, Plaintiff must, within 30

days of his release, either (1) notify the

Court that he intends to pay the unpaid

balance of his filing fee within 120 days of

his release or (2) file a non-prisoner

application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Failure to comply may result in dismissal of

this action. 

Case 2:14-cv-01590-DLR Document 9 Filed 02/11/15 Page 2 of 6
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-

 Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a

change of address in accordance with Rule

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil

Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a

motion for other relief with a notice of

change of address. Failure to comply may

result in dismissal of this action.

***

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with

every provision of this Order, including

these warnings, the Court may dismiss this

action without further notice. See Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.

1992) (a district court may dismiss an action

for failure to comply with any order of the

Court). Plaintiff must complete and return

the service packet to the Clerk of Court

within 21 days of the date of filing of this

Order. The United States Marshal will not

provide service of process if Plaintiff fails

to comply with this Order. 

 If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver

of service of the summons or complete service

of the Summons and Complaint on a Defendant

within 120 days of his release or within 60

days of the filing of this Order, whichever

is later. The action may be dismissed as to

each Defendant not served. Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(m); LRCiv 16.2(b)(2)(B)(i).

The copy of the service order at Doc. 6 mailed to

Plaintiff was returned to the Court as undeliverable on December

16, 2014. See Doc. 8. The return of the service order

indicates Plaintiff has been paroled. Plaintiff did not return

a service packet to the Court for any defendant.

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

Case 2:14-cv-01590-DLR Document 9 Filed 02/11/15 Page 3 of 6
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-

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 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

Case 2:14-cv-01590-DLR Document 9 Filed 02/11/15 Page 4 of 6
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-

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.

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 could find that a dismissal with

prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to Rule

41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this action be

dismissed without prejudice.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately

appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of

appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District

Court’s judgment.

Case 2:14-cv-01590-DLR Document 9 Filed 02/11/15 Page 5 of 6
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

-6-

Pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the

date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to

file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the

parties have fourteen (14) days within which to file a response

to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, Local Rules of Civil

Procedure for the United States District Court for the District

of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not

exceed seventeen (17) pages in length.

Failure to timely file objections to any factual or

legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered

a waiver of a party’s right to de novo appellate consideration

of the issues. See United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Failure to timely file

objections to any factual or legal determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party’s right to

appellate review of the findings of fact and conclusions of law

in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge.

DATED this 9th day of February, 2015.

Case 2:14-cv-01590-DLR Document 9 Filed 02/11/15 Page 6 of 6