Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01411/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01411-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Allen Baker, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Attorney General of the State of Arizona,

et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1411 PHX RCB (MEA)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff John Allen Baker brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against Phoenix Police Department Officer Phillips (Doc. 1). By Order dated September 15,

2011, the Court warned Plaintiff that he must file a Notice of Change of Address if his

address changes and that failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this matter (Doc.

6 at 6). Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure further requires Plaintiff to file

a notice of change of address 14 days before the move is effective. Also, Plaintiff was

informed in the instructions accompanying the form complaint that he must immediately

inform the Clerk of Court of a change of address or face possible dismissal. On October 29,

2012, an Order that was mailed to Plaintiff’s most recent address was returned to the Court

as “undeliverable” (Doc. 24). Also, a review of the docket reveals that Plaintiff has not filed

anything in this action since September 29, 2011 (Doc. 8). Nor has Plaintiff filed a response

to Defendant’s pending summary judgment motion (Doc. 21). It therefore appears that

Plaintiff has abandoned this action and the Court will order him to show cause within 20 days

why this action should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

Case 2:11-cv-01411-RCB Document 27 Filed 12/06/12 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 -

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) (per curiam). 

It is well established that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a district court

has authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s action because of his failure to prosecute or to comply

with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626,

629-30 (1962) (a district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure

to prosecute); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (1992) (holding that a district court

may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court); see also Ghazali v.

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to

comply with a local rule). 

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 participate in this action prevents the case from proceeding and militates against wasting

scant judicial resources. The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. The fifth

factor requires the Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative is available. As a

Case 2:11-cv-01411-RCB Document 27 Filed 12/06/12 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 -

result, the Court will provide Plaintiff with 20 days to respond to this Order to Show Cause

and explain why this action should not be dismissed under Rule 41(b). If Plaintiff fails to

respond, this action will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff must respond to this Order to Show

Cause within 20 days as detailed herein. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to respond to this Order to Show

Cause the Clerk of Court must dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff. 

DATED this 5th day of December, 2012

Case 2:11-cv-01411-RCB Document 27 Filed 12/06/12 Page 3 of 3