Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00420/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00420-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 JWB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Miguel A. Martinez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Yuma County, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0420-PHX-EHC (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff filed this Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February

8, 2006, alleging violations of his constitutional rights (Doc. # 1). Presently pending before

the Court is Defendant Steve Linde’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution and the

remaining Defendants’ joinders to the motion (Doc. ## 44-46). The Court will grant the

motion and dismiss this action without prejudice.

Defendants aver that Plaintiff has failed to respond to any discovery request, has failed

to appear for his deposition, and has not provided any disclosure. Plaintiff’s counsel

responded to the motion, stating that they have been unable to reach the Plaintiff and do not

currently have any way of reaching him. 

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 to keep the Court apprised of his or her current address, and to comply with

the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. This Court does not have an affirmative obligation

to locate Plaintiff. “A party, not the district court, bears the burden of keeping the court

Case 2:06-cv-00420-EHC-DKD Document 52 Filed 02/08/08 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 -

apprised of any changes in his mailing address.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th

Cir. 1988) (per curiam). If the Court were to order Plaintiff to show cause why dismissal

was not warranted, the Order “would only find itself taking a round trip through the United

States mail.” Id.

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[f]or failure of the

plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may

move for dismissal of an action.” 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 favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiff’s failure

to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests, appear for his deposition, provide disclosure,

or keep his counsel updated on his address precludes 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. 

Case 2:06-cv-00420-EHC-DKD Document 52 Filed 02/08/08 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 -

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.” In the instant case,

the Court finds that a dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh. The Complaint

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

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Complaint and this action are DISMISSED without

prejudice. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 44) is GRANTED and the Clerk of Court

is directed to enter judgment accordingly. 

DATED this 6th day of February, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-00420-EHC-DKD Document 52 Filed 02/08/08 Page 3 of 3