Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02732/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02732-1/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

Miguel Molina-Martinez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors;

Sheriff Joe Arpaio; and Cpt. Peterson,

Durango Jail Commander, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2732-PHX-DGC (MEA)

ORDER

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a pro se civil rights complaint against

Defendants on September 8, 2005. Dkt. #1. United States Magistrate Judge Mark Aspey has

filed a report and recommendation (“R&R”). The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss

this action without prejudice. Dkt. #6. The Court will accept the R&R.

Plaintiff was warned that his failure to effect service of process on Defendants within

120 days of the filing of the complaint would result in dismissal of the complaint pursuant

to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #3 ¶ 7. When Plaintiff failed to

timely serve Defendants, the Court gave Plaintiff until June 9, 2006 to show cause why the

case should not be dismissed. Dkt. #5. Plaintiff did not respond to the order to show cause.

Nor has Plaintiff completed service on Defendants.

Case 2:05-cv-02732-DGC Document 8 Filed 07/20/07 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 -

The R&R recommends that the complaint be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to serve

Defendants as required by Rule 4 and the Court’s Orders. Dkt. #6 at 2. A copy of the R&R

was mailed to Plaintiff on July 2, 2007, and was returned as undeliverable. Dkt. #7.

The Court has the inherent power to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute. See Link

v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962). “The power to invoke this sanction is

necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid

congestion in the District Courts.” Id. In determining whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute

warrants dismissal of this action, the Court must weigh five factors: the public’s interest in

expeditious resolution of litigation, the Court’s need to manage its docket, the risk of

prejudice to Defendant, the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and

the availability of less drastic sanctions. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir.

1988) (citing Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).

The first three factors favor dismissal of this case. The Court explicitly warned

Plaintiff that this case would be dismissed if he failed to serve Defendants. Dkt. #3 ¶ 7; see

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Fidelity Phila. Trust Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27,

29 (9th Cir. 1978) (“It is a well established rule that the duty to move a case is on the plaintiff

and not on the defendant or the court.”). The Court further warned Plaintiff that he had an

affirmative duty to keep the Court apprised of his current location and that the failure to do

so may result in dismissal of the action. Dkt. #3 ¶ 14; see Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441 (“A party,

not the district court, bears the burden of keeping the court apprised of any changes in his

mailing address.”). Plaintiff’s failure to serve Defendants and failure to keep the Court

informed of his location 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. Another “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.” Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441. The Court finds

that the least drastic available sanction is a dismissal without prejudice.

Case 2:05-cv-02732-DGC Document 8 Filed 07/20/07 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 -

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Dkt. #6) is accepted.

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

DATED this 20th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02732-DGC Document 8 Filed 07/20/07 Page 3 of 3