Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01774/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01774-0/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

Jason Lunday,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-05-1774-PHX-SMM (LOA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter arises on the Court’s review of the file. Plaintiff commenced this action on

June 10, 2005. (document # 1) On November 22, 2005, the Court ordered service on Defendant

and directed Plaintiff to return the completed service packet on or before December 12, 2005.

(document # 4) In that same Order, the Court directed Plaintiff to immediately notify the Court

in writing of any change in his address and warned Plaintiff that failure to do so could result in

dismissal of this action. 

Thereafter, on November 28, 2005 and December 6, 2005 the Court received returned

mail addressed to Plaintiff marked "undeliverable. released, no longer in custody." (documents

# 5, # 6) Additionally, Plaintiff did not return a completed service packet by the December 12,

2005 deadline. Plaintiff violated the Court's November 22, 2005 Order by failing to advise the

Court of his new address and by failing to return a completed service packet by the deadline.

 In view of Plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders, on December 15, 2005, the Court

ordered Plaintiff to show cause on or before January 5, 2006 why his action should not be

Case 2:05-cv-01774-SMM Document 10 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 5
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 -

dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Court orders. (document # 7)(citing

FED.R.CIV.P. 41(b)). 

Although the January 5, 2006 deadline has passed, Plaintiff has not responded to the

Court's December 15, 2005 Order and has neither returned a completed service packet nor

advised the Court of his current address. On December 23, 2005, the Court again received

returned mail addressed to Plaintiff marked "no longer in custody." (document # 9) There is no

alternate address for Plaintiff in the Court's records. Plaintiff has not taken any action in this

matter since he filed the Complaint on June 10, 2005. (document # 1) In view of the foregoing,

the Court will consider whether dismissal is appropriate.

When considering whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or failure to

comply with court orders, the court must consider: "'(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.'" Malone v. United States Postal Service, 833 F.3d 128,

130 (9th Cir. 1987)(quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

The first two dismissal factors support dismissal of this matter. Plaintiff's failure to take

any action since filing this case has impeded the resolution of this case. See Malone, 833 F.2d

at 130. While the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint and attempted to assist Plaintiff in

serving his Complaint, Plaintiff has done nothing. (document # 4) Plaintiff's failure to inform

the Court of his address and failure to return a completed service packet has brought this matter

to a halt. Plaintiff's failure to explain his disregard for Court orders and his delay in returning

the completed service packet also weighs in favor of dismissal. See Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d

493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984). Third, Plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion as to the reasonableness

of his delay and lack of prejudice to Defendant. See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1232

(9th Cir. 1984). "In determining whether a defendant has been prejudiced, [the court] examine[s]

whether the plaintiff's actions impair the defendant's ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere

with the rightful decision of the case." Malone, 833 F.2d at 131 (citing Rubin v. Belo

Broadcasting Corp. (In re Rubin), 769 F.2d 611, 618 (9th Cir. 1985)). Under Rule 41(b),

Case 2:05-cv-01774-SMM Document 10 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 5
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 is required to prosecute his case with reasonable diligence. Moore v. Telfon

Communications Corp., 589 F.2d 959, 967 (9th Cir. 1978). Plaintiff has not taken any action

in this matter since he filed his Complaint in June of 2005. Plaintiff's inaction has effectively

stopped the litigation of this matter indefinitely. Despite being ordered to do so, Plaintiff has

not explained his total disregard of the Court's Orders. Under these circumstances, the Court

finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden of persuasion on the issue of prejudice. See

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1232 (9th Cir. 1984)(finding that district court did not abuse

its discretion in dismissing action based on plaintiff's failure to serve process where plaintiff had

failed to satisfy his burden of establishing lack of prejudice to defendants.) Fourth, the Order

to Show Cause warned Plaintiff that the Court may dismiss the matter if Plaintiff did not show

cause for his failure to comply with court orders. This warning satisfies the Court's obligation

to consider less drastic alternatives to dismissal. See Malone, 833 F.2d at 132 (citations

omitted). Finally, the public policy in favor of deciding cases on the merits weighs against

dismissal. This factor alone, however, does not outweigh the other factors which support

dismissal. Id. at 133 n.2. 

After review of the foregoing factors, the Court finds that this matter should be dismissed

based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute his claims and failure to comply with Court orders. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992)(stating that district courts have the

authority to "control their dockets and, . . . they may impose sanctions including, where

appropriate, . . . dismissal of a case." )(internal quotation omitted); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d

1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988)(holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing

pro se plaintiff's complaint for failure to advise the court of his current mailing address.) 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED without prejudice

for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with Court orders pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P.

41(b). 

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

Case 2:05-cv-01774-SMM Document 10 Filed 01/24/06 Page 3 of 5
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 -

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court=s judgment. The parties shall

have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file

specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(e),

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a

response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the

District Court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate

Judge will 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, Magistrate Judge=s recommendation. See Rule

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dated this 20th day of January, 2006. 

Case 2:05-cv-01774-SMM Document 10 Filed 01/24/06 Page 4 of 5
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 -

Case 2:05-cv-01774-SMM Document 10 Filed 01/24/06 Page 5 of 5