Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03177/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03177-0/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

1

 According to the Court's docket, mail sent to Hernandez on March 23, 2006 was

returned because Green had been released from prison. (Doc. No. 5.) 

- 1 -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Domingo Hernandez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-3177-PHX-NVW (JCG)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 Plaintiff, previously confined1

 in the Durango Jail in Phoenix, Arizona, filed with the

Clerk of the Court on October 12, 2005, a pro se Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. No. 1)

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been authorized to proceed In Forma Pauperis,

and the court has directed monthly payments to be made from his prison account.

On March 22, 2006, the Court entered an order directing the Clerk of the Court to mail

a service packet to the Plaintiff, due for return to the Court on April 10, 2006. (Doc. No. 3).

The docket indicates that the Clerk of Court mailed the order and service packet accordingly.

On March 27, 2006, the mail was returned to the Clerk of the Court with notations indicating

"Return to Sender ... Unable to Forward ... Released" (Doc. No. 5) The docket indicates

Case 2:05-cv-03177-NVW Document 6 Filed 05/30/06 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 -

that the Clerk of the Court researched Plaintiff's address to no avail. Since then, Plaintiff has

failed to file a Notice of Change of Address, or in any way to notify the Court of his

whereabouts. 

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 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." (Doc. No. 2). One of the rules listed was that "[y]ou must file a Notice of

Change of Address if your address changes." (Doc. No. 2).

Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute his 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 appraised of his or her

current address, and to comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. 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.

In addition, Plaintiff has failed to return a completed service packet, to obtain waiver

of service or to complete service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendants in this case.

The order that was mailed to Plaintiff along with the service packet notified Plaintiff that

failure to comply with every provision of the order would result in dismissal pursuant to Rule

41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 4). The order contained provisions

that required Plaintiff to return the service packet within 20 days of the date of filing of the

order. Plaintiff was also notified that if he failed to comply with the order, the United States

Case 2:05-cv-03177-NVW Document 6 Filed 05/30/06 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 -

Marshal would not provide service of process. Plaintiff was further notified within the order

that he must complete service of the Summons and Complaint on the Defendants within 120

days of the filing date of the complaint or within 60 days of the filing of the order, whichever

was later. The order notified Plaintiff that failure to comply with either provision would

result in dismissal of his case. More than 120 days have passed since Plaintiff filed his

complaint, and to date service has not been completed. Plaintiff’s failure to complete service

of the Summons and Complaint on the Defendants within 120 days of the filing date of the

complaint or within 60 days of the filing of the order also constitutes failure to prosecute.

A federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure

to prosecute. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962). 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 v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,

1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (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, actively participate in this case or serve

Defendants 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. 

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

Case 2:05-cv-03177-NVW Document 6 Filed 05/30/06 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 -

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. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 1.17(d)(2),

Rules of Practice of the United States District Court, District of Arizona, the Magistrate

Judge recommends that Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 1) and this action be DISMISSED

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 not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. The parties are advised that any objections

filed are to be identified with the following case number: CV-05-3177-PHX-NVW. 

DATED this 30th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03177-NVW Document 6 Filed 05/30/06 Page 4 of 4