Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01466/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01466-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jose Monroy, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV-05-1466-PHX-MHM (JM)

ORDER

Currently before the court is Plaintiff's pro se prisoner civil rights complaint. (Dkt.

#1). The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall for Report and

Recommendation. On September 20, 2005 Magistrate Judge Marshall filed her Report and

Recommendation with this Court. (Dkt. # 7). Plaintiff failed to file any objections.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court must review the legal analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court must review the factual analysis in the Report and

Recommendation de novo for those facts to which Objections are filed. "Failure to object

to a magistrate judge's recommendation waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact."

Jones v. Wood, 207 F.3d 557, 562 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2000).

Case 2:05-cv-01466-MHM Document 8 Filed 11/10/05 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 -

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff filed with the Clerk of the Court on April 18, 2005 a pro se prisoner civil

rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. #1. On August 12, 2005, the Court

granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, directed Plaintiff to serve

Defendants, and advised Plaintiff to “immediately advise the Court and the United States

Marshal of any change of address and its effective date.” Dkt.# 4. On August 16, 2005, court

mail addressed to Plaintiff was returned to the Clerk of Court as undeliverable. Dkt. #5. Since

then, Plaintiff has failed to file a notice of change of address or to notify the Court of his

whereabouts. 

In her Report and Recommendation, Judge Marshall recommends the Court dismiss

Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to follow the

Court’s orders. 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 strongly favor dismissal of this case. Since

April 18, 2005, Plaintiff has taken no further action to prosecute his case. Dkt. #1. Moreover,

Case 2:05-cv-01466-MHM Document 8 Filed 11/10/05 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 -

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 Plaintiff’s current

address, however, certain alternatives are bound to be futile. Here, as in Carey, "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." The Complaint and

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

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge Marshall, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's Complaint should be

dismissed without prejudice. The Court hereby incorporates and adopts Magistrate Judge

Marshall's Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Marshall’s

Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. #7).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint and this action are dismissed

without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure

to prosecute. (Dkt. #1).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 8th day of November, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01466-MHM Document 8 Filed 11/10/05 Page 3 of 3