Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02410/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02410-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cleveland Yarrow Cook, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

) CIV 11-02410 PHX DGC MEA

vs. ) 

) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Sergeant Hawthorne, et al., )

) 

 Defendants. ) 

_______________________________)

TO THE HONORABLE DAVID G. CAMPBELL:

Plaintiff filed his complaint on December 7, 2011.

On February 27, 2012, Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in

forma pauperis and the Court ordered Plaintiff to complete and

return a service packet for Defendants Hawthorne, Nygren, Ellis,

Perry, Lopez, and Kindle to the Court by March 19, 2012. That

order warned Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply with

the provisions of the order would result in the dismissal of the

complaint. 

Plaintiff was warned that his failure to acquire a

waiver of service from Defendants or to complete service of

process on Defendants within 60 days of the date the service

order was filed, by April 26, 2012, would result in the

dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 4(m), Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, and Rule 16.2(b)(2)(B), of the United States

District Court for the District of Arizona Local Rules of Civil

Case 2:11-cv-02410-DGC Document 17 Filed 05/30/12 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-

Procedure. The civil docket in this matter indicates that

Plaintiff has failed to return service packets to the Court, or

to acquire a waiver of service from Defendants or to complete

service of process on Defendants.

On April 30, 2012, the Court allowed Plaintiff until

May 18, 2012, to show cause why this case should not be

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s

order of February 27, 2012, and Plaintiff’s failure to effect

service of process on Defendants as required by the Court’s

order and Rule 4, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff

has failed to show cause for his failure to abide by the Court’s

orders and to effect service of process on Defendants. 

Rule 3.4, Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the

United States District Court for the District of Arizona

requires prisoner-litigants to comply with instructions attached

to the Court-approved complaint form for use in section 1983

actions. Those instructions provide: “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.” 

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

Case 2:11-cv-02410-DGC Document 17 Filed 05/30/12 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-

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. 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 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

Case 2:11-cv-02410-DGC Document 17 Filed 05/30/12 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-

Complaint and this action will therefore be dismissed without

prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to Rule

41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this action be

dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to serve the

Defendants in this matter and for Plaintiff’s failure to comply

with the Court’s orders.

DATED this 29th day of May, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02410-DGC Document 17 Filed 05/30/12 Page 4 of 4