Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02185/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-02185-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Agustin Garcia-Hernandez
Petitioner
USA
Respondent

Document Text:

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 

Agustin Garcia-Hernandez,

Movant, 

v. 

USA, 

Respondent.

No. CV-14-02185-TUC-BPV

 PO-14-24446-TUC-BPV 

ORDER 

 Movant, Agustin Garcia-Hernandez, previously incarcerated at the Giles W Dalby 

Correctional Facility in Post, Texas, address presently unknown, filed with the Clerk of 

the Court on June 20, 2014, a pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set 

Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. (Doc. 1.) 

 On June 20, 2014, the Court entered a Notice of Assignment and mailed a copy of 

the document to Plaintiff at the address listed on his Petition. (Doc. 2.) On December 11, 

2014, the Court entered an order directing the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of the § 

2255 Motion on the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona. (Doc. 3.) The 

order was mailed by the Clerk of Court to Petitioner at his last known address at the Giles 

W. Dalby Correctional Facility in Post, TX on December 12, 2014. On December 23, 

2014 the order was returned to the Clerk of the Court stamped "Released Return to 

Sender” and indicating "Unable to Forward." (Doc. 4.) Since that time, Petitioner has 

failed to file a Notice of Change of Address, or in any way to notify the Court of his 

whereabouts. 

Case 4:14-cv-02185-BPV Document 8 Filed 02/26/15 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

 On January 9, 2015, this Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why this matter 

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to keep the Court informed of 

his current address by filing a writing with this Court within twenty days of the date of 

the order to show cause. (Doc. 6.) On January 27, 2015 the order to show cause was 

returned to the Court as undeliverable and Petitioner has failed to file any document in 

response to the order to show cause. 

 Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure (LRCiv) requires that an 

unrepresented party who is incarcerated file a notice of address change within seven (7) 

days after the effective date of the change. Having failed to notify the Court of a new 

address, 

 Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust 

Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). In this regard, it is the 

duty of a plaintiff who has filed a pro se action 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 apprised of any changes in his mailing address." 

Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff's failure to keep the Court 

informed of his new address constitutes failure to prosecute. 

 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 R. 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. 

// 

// 

Case 4:14-cv-02185-BPV Document 8 Filed 02/26/15 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

 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. Movant's 

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 Movant's current address, however, certain alternatives are bound to be futile. 

Here, as in Carey, "[a]n 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." In the instant 

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

Complaint and this action should therefore be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 Accordingly, 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 4:14-cv-02185-BPV Document 8 Filed 02/26/15 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

 IT IS ORDERED: 

 1. The Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in 

Federal Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 PO 14-24446-TUC-BPV (Doc. 2) and CV 

14-2185-TUC-BPV (Doc. 1) is DENIED; 

 2. CV 14-2185-TUC-BPV is DISMISSED without prejudice, and; 

 3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and shall then close its file in 

this matter. 

 Dated this 23rd day of February, 2015. 

Case 4:14-cv-02185-BPV Document 8 Filed 02/26/15 Page 4 of 4