Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00071/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00071-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

- 1 -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Camilo Munoz, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-71-PHX-EHC (HCE)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

On January 6, 2006, Plaintiff, filed the instant pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 31, 2006, the Court entered an order directing, inter alia, the Clerk of

Court to mail a service packet to Plaintiff. The Court's January 31, 2006 Order also directed

Plaintiff to return the completed service packet to the Court within twenty days and warned

Plaintiff that his failure to either obtain a waiver of service or to otherwise effect service

within 120 days of the filing date of the complaint or within 60 days of the filing of the

Order, whichever was later, may result in dismissal. The January 31, 2006 Order and service

Case 2:06-cv-00071-EHC Document 8 Filed 07/17/06 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

packet were mailed on that same date to Plaintiff at his address of record. On March 3,

2006, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address. 

 Plaintiff herein has failed to return the service packet within the Court-ordered

deadline and to either obtain a waiver of service or effect service within the Court-ordered

deadline. In light of Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's January 31, 2006 Order,

the Court granted Plaintiff until June 23, 2006 to file a brief showing good cause why this

action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. (June 1, 2006 Order) Plaintiff was advised that his failure to file

such brief by the deadline would result in a recommendation to the District Court to dismiss

this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41. The docket reflects that on June 7, 2006, the Court's

June 1, 2006 Order was mailed to Plaintiff at his current address of record. To date, Plaintiff

has not filed the brief required by the Court's June 1, 2006 Order.

II. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may dismiss

an action "[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order

of court." Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); see also Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. United States

Forest Service, 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) ("courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua

sponte"); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (same). 

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 comply with the Court’s orders in a timely

fashion. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissing action for failure

to keep court apprised of current address); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995) ("pro

se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure"); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.

1987)("[p]ro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other

litigants").

In determining whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of his case,

Case 2:06-cv-00071-EHC Document 8 Filed 07/17/06 Page 2 of 4
- 3 -

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 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 comply with Court-ordered deadlines, to comply with the Court's order to file a brief

showing good cause why this matter should not be dismissed, to make any effort to serve

Defendant, or to otherwise actively participate in this case 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. Given

Plaintiff's failure to actively participate in this action, 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, a dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh as

the Complaint and this action can be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

III. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court

dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure for failure to prosecute.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), any party may serve and file written objections within

10 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. If objections

are filed, the parties should use the following case number: CV 06-71-PHX-EHC.

Case 2:06-cv-00071-EHC Document 8 Filed 07/17/06 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

If objections are not timely filed, then the parties' right to de novo review by the

District Court may be deemed waived. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003).

DATED this 14th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00071-EHC Document 8 Filed 07/17/06 Page 4 of 4