Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00069/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00069-0/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

1

When Plaintiff filed the Complaint, he was confined in the Maricopa County Madison Jail

in Phoenix, Arizona ("Madison Jail").

- 1 -

WO RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Shawn Francis Drummy, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Wal-Mart Inc., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-69-PHX-EHC (DKD)

ORDER

On January 6, 2005, Shawn Francis Drummy ("Plaintiff"), presently released, filed

with the Clerk of the Court a pro se Civil Complaint (Document #1) ("Complaint").1

 A

"Separate Answer of Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." (Document #5) was filed on February

10, 2005. Plaintiff did not pay a filing fee, or file an Application To Proceed In Forma

Pauperis By A Prisoner Civil (Non-Habeas) ("Application To Proceed").

By Order filed August 2, 2005 (Document #8), Plaintiff was given thirty (30) days

from the filing date of the Order to pay the one hundred and fifty dollar ($150.00) filing fee,

or in the alternative, to file with the Court a certified Application To Proceed and a copy of

Case 2:05-cv-00069-EHC--DKD Document 10 Filed 10/07/05 Page 1 of 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

2

The website of the Maricopa County Sheriff does not show Plaintiff as being in the current

custody of the Maricopa Sheriff. Also, the website of the Arizona Department of Corrections

(ADOC) does not show Plaintiff as being in the current custody of the ADOC.

- 2 -

his trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the six (6) months

immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint. To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply

with the Court's August 2, 2005 Order. 

RETURNED MAIL

On August 2, 2005, the Clerk of the Court mailed a copy of the Court's August 2,

2005 Order to Plaintiff at his last known address at the Durango Jail. Then, on August 8,

2005, the envelope containing the copy of the Order was returned to the Clerk of the Court

with the notations “Return to Sender No Longer in Custody" and "NOT DELIVERABLE AS

ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD." Since then, Plaintiff has failed to file a Notice

of Change of Address, or to in any way notify the Court of his whereabouts. Accordingly,

the Clerk of the Court has been unable to remail the copy of the Order to Plaintiff.2

Rule 3.4(a) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure ("LRCiv") requires that an

incarcerated litigant comply with the instructions attached to the Court-approved Complaint

form. Those instructions state: “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.” (Information and Instructions for a

Prisoner Filing Civil Rights Complaint at 2).

Also, in its Notice Of Assignment (Document #2) ("Notice"), the Court warned

Plaintiff that "[f]ailure to comply with the following rules will result in your document being

STRUCK and/or your case being DISMISSED." (Notice at 1). One of the rules listed was

that "[y]ou must file a Notice of Change of Address if your address changes." (Notice at 1).

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

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

Case 2:05-cv-00069-EHC--DKD Document 10 Filed 10/07/05 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

duty of a plaintiff who has filed a pro se action to keep the Court appraised 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

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

Case 2:05-cv-00069-EHC--DKD Document 10 Filed 10/07/05 Page 3 of 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 - 4 -

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

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Civil Complaint (Document #1) and this

action are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute, and the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to

ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly. 

DATED this 5th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-00069-EHC--DKD Document 10 Filed 10/07/05 Page 4 of 4