Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02786/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02786-0/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

Arthur F. Gerth,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. Foster, et. al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 16-02786-PHX-DJH (ESW)

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE DIANE J. HUMETEWA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

JUDGE:

On August 18, 2016, Arthur F. Gerth (“Plaintiff”), who was then confined in the 

Fourth Avenue Jail in Phoenix, Arizona filed a pro se Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. 1) 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 18, 2016, the Clerk of Court mailed a Notice of 

Assignment (Doc. 4) to Plaintiff’s address of record. It is assumed that Petitioner 

received the Notice of Assignment (Doc. 4) as it was not returned as undeliverable. 

On November 2, 2016, the Court issued an Order directing service of the 

Complaint (Doc. 1) on certain defendants. (Doc. 5). The Court also issued an Order for 

Payment of Inmate Filing Fee (Doc. 6). Those two Orders were returned to the Court as 

undeliverable, with a notation that Plaintiff is no longer in custody.1

 (Doc. 7). 

 

1 The undersigned typed in Plaintiff’s name in the Arizona Department of 

Case 2:16-cv-02786-DJH Document 8 Filed 03/14/17 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

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

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.3(d) requires parties to submit a notice of change 

of address within seven days. At the top of the court-approved form on which Plaintiff 

filed his Complaint (Doc. 1) is the language: “Failure to notify the Court of your change 

of address may result in dismissal of this action.” 

Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. See Fidelity Phila. Trust Co. 

v. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978) (“It is a well established 

rule that the duty to move a case is on the plaintiff and not on the defendant or the 

court.”). The 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.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that “if the plaintiff fails to 

prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to 

dismiss the action or any claim against it.” 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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) appears to require a motion from a 

party. Moreover, in appropriate circumstances, the Court may dismiss a pleading for 

failure to prosecute even without notice or hearing. Link, 370 U.S. 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 

 Corrections’ Inmate Datasearch website (https://corrections.az.gov/public- resources/inmate-datasearch), but no records were found.

Case 2:16-cv-02786-DJH Document 8 Filed 03/14/17 Page 2 of 4
- 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

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, 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 undersigned 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 dismissal order states otherwise.” In this case, the 

undersigned finds that a dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh. The 

undersigned therefore recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

For the above reasons,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss the Complaint (Doc. 1) without 

prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

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. 

However, pursuant to Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., the parties shall have fourteen 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 days within 

which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to any factual 

determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to 

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the 

Case 2:16-cv-02786-DJH Document 8 Filed 03/14/17 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Dated this 14th day of March, 2017. 

Case 2:16-cv-02786-DJH Document 8 Filed 03/14/17 Page 4 of 4