Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02523/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02523-3/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 

 On May 30, 2013 and on June 7, 2013, Plaintiff’s mail was returned to the Clerk 

of Court as undeliverable. (Doc. 11, 12.) The mail return dated June 7, 2013, remarks 

that Plaintiff is “no longer in custody.” (Doc. 12 at 2.) 

 Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court 

may dismiss an action due to a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or to comply with court 

orders. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (a court’s authority to 

dismiss for lack of prosecution is necessary to prevent undue delays in the disposition of 

pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the district courts); Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure 

to comply with any order of the court). Further, a district court may dismiss an action for 

failure to comply with a local rule. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure (“LRCiv”), Rules of Practice of the 

U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, requires that an “unrepresented party must 

file a notice of a name or address change... no later than fourteen (14) days before the 

Mark Anthony Johnson, 

 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Sergeant Philling, et al., 

Defendants. 

 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-12-02523-PHX-RCB (SPL)

 O R D E R 

Case 2:12-cv-02523-RCB Document 13 Filed 06/17/13 Page 1 of 3
2 

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 

effective date of the change, except that an unrepresented party who is incarcerated must 

submit a notice within seven (7) days after the effective date of the change.” 

 Here, Plaintiff has been specifically warned that failure to comply with LRCiv 

83.3 may result in dismissal of his action. (Doc. 6 at 2; Doc. 9 at 6.) “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) (per curiam). If the 

Court were to order Plaintiff to show cause why dismissal is not warranted, the Order 

“would only find itself taking a round trip tour through the United States mail.” Id. The 

Court is also not required to hold the matter in abeyance. “It would be absurd to require 

the district court to hold a case in abeyance indefinitely just because it is unable, through 

the plaintiff’s own fault, to contact the plaintiff to determine if his reasons for not 

prosecuting his lawsuit are reasonable or not.” Id. 

 Before dismissal for failure to prosecute or to comply with a local rule, however, 

the Court must weigh “(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.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 

F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). Under the instant circumstances, the first factor 

“always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). 

The second factor also favors dismissal. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1261. 

Plaintiff has not provided the Court with his present address, and the Court continues to 

receive returned mail. Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court informed of his address 

prevents the case from proceeding in the foreseeable future. See Edwards v. Marin Park, 

Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that “resources continue to be 

consumed by a case sitting idly on the court’s docket”). “[T]he failure to prosecute 

diligently is sufficient by itself to justify a dismissal, even in the absence of a showing of 

actual prejudice to the defendant from the failure.” In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452 (9th 

Cir. 1994) (internal quotation omitted). However, because public policy favors 

Case 2:12-cv-02523-RCB Document 13 Filed 06/17/13 Page 2 of 3
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 

disposition of cases on their merits, the fourth factor weighs against dismissal. Pagtalunan 

v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). In considering the final factor, the Court 

finds that dismissal without prejudice is an available and less drastic sanction in this case. 

Although dismissal itself is a drastic sanction, see Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260, absent 

Plaintiff’s current address, the alternatives are bound to be futile. 

 In sum, the five-factor analysis favors dismissal. Therefore, in light of Plaintiff’s 

failure to prosecute this action and comply with LRCiv 83.3, requiring him to notify the 

Court of address changes, dismissal of this action is warranted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice, and 

the Clerk of Court must terminate the action. 

 DATED this 14th day of June, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-02523-RCB Document 13 Filed 06/17/13 Page 3 of 3