Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-01359/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-01359-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tracey Brown
Plaintiff
Collection Bureau of America Limited
Defendant

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

Tracey Brown,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Collection Bureau of America Limited,

Defendant.

No. CV-19-01359-PHX-MTL

ORDER 

On November 19, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

(Doc. 30.) The Court’s Order required Plaintiff to either retain substitute counsel, or to 

notify the Court that Plaintiff would proceed pro se, by December 2, 2019. (Id. at 1.) 

Plaintiff did not comply with the Order. The Court then issued an Order to Show Cause on 

December 27, 2019, requiring a response by January 10, 2020. (Doc. 32.) The mail

containing the Order was returned as undeliverable (Doc. 33), and Plaintiff did not respond.

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

Co. v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). Plaintiff is also 

required to notify the Court of any change to her mailing address. See Carey v. King, 856 

F.2d 1439, 1440-1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (“An order to show cause why dismissal was not 

warranted or an order imposing sanctions would only find itself taking a round trip tour 

through the United States mail. Carey’s suggestion that we impose upon the district court 

an affirmative obligation to call the jailhouse to inquire into his whereabouts prior to 

dismissing his lawsuit is unacceptable. A party, not the district court, bears the burden of 

Case 2:19-cv-01359-MTL Document 35 Filed 02/12/20 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

keeping the court apprised of any changes in his mailing address.”).

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that “[i]f the plaintiff fails 

to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss 

the action or any claim against it.” 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. The Court may dismiss for failure to 

prosecute even without notice or hearing in appropriate circumstances. See 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 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 comply with two Court orders prevents the case from proceeding for the 

foreseeable future. The fourth, as always, weighs against dismissal. The fifth factor 

requires the Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative is available. The Court 

previously ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed (doc. 

34), but Plaintiff did not respond. 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 dismissal order states otherwise.” The 

Court finds that dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh in this case. 

Therefore, the Court will dismiss the case without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly,

///

Case 2:19-cv-01359-MTL Document 35 Filed 02/12/20 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

IT IS ORDERED that this matter is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 

41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this matter. 

Dated this 12th day of February, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-01359-MTL Document 35 Filed 02/12/20 Page 3 of 3