Dolph v. Arizona Community Protection and Treatment Center

Filing 30

ORDER that pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure this action is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 12/10/2011. (KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10

James Alvin Dolph,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

Arizona Community Protection
Treatment Center, et al.,

14
Defendants.
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
and)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 10-1162-PHX-RCB (MHB)
ORDER

16

On December 3, 2010, Plaintiff James Alvin Dolph, who is confined in the Arizona

17

State Hospital, filed a pro se civil rights Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 9). In his one-

18

count Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues Physician Assistant Randy Pence and

19

Nursing Supervisor Annette Antoine. Plaintiff alleges that his Eighth Amendment rights

20

were violated when Defendants refused to provide him with medical shoes that were

21

prescribed by a podiatrist. Plaintiff states that as a result of being denied the shoes, he has

22

suffered continuous pain, swelling in his feet and ankles, poor blood circulation and open

23

sores on his feet. Plaintiff further alleges that denial of the shoes may ultimately result in

24

“loss of limb, blood cl[ot]s and/or death.” In its screening Order, the Court ordered

25

Defendants Pence and Antoine to answer the Second Amended Complaint.

26

Although the record reflected that service was returned executed on both Defendants

27

(Docs. 11, 12), the Court subsequently found that service was improper. Proper service of

28

process could have only been accomplished by serving the Defendants in accordance with

1

the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e), which governs service over individuals and provides

2

as follows: delivering copies of the summons and complaint directly to the individual, Rule

3

4(e)(2)(A); leaving the copies with a suitable person at the individual’s dwelling or usual

4

place of abode, Rule 4(e)(2)(B); or delivering them to an agent authorized by appointment

5

or by law to receive process, Rule 4(e)(2)(C). The rule also allows a plaintiff to request a

6

party to waive service, Rule 4(d). Plaintiff failed to claim that he sought a waiver from

7

Defendants, nor did he allege to have personally served Defendants or indicate that he left

8

copies of the summons and amended complaint at either Defendant’s dwelling or usual place

9

of abode. Rather, Plaintiff attempted to serve the summons for Defendants on CEO John

10

Cooper at the Arizona State Hospital. While service upon the chief executive officer of the

11

associated county, municipal corporation, or other governmental subdivision of the state may

12

be appropriate when such entity is subject to suit, Ariz.R.Civ.P. 4.1(i), such is not the case

13

when individual defendants are involved. And, there was nothing in the record to suggest

14

that John Cooper was authorized to accept service on Defendants’ behalf.

15

Thus, the record indicating that none of the Defendants have been served and the time

16

for completing service having expired, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this

17

action should not be dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to serve. Plaintiff has not responded.

18

The Court, therefore, will determine whether dismissal is appropriate.

19

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

20

Co. v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). Rule 41(b) of the

21

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or

22

to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an

23

action.” In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962), the Supreme Court

24

recognized that a federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte

25

for failure to prosecute, even though the language of Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

26

Procedure appears to require a motion from a party. Moreover, in appropriate circumstances,

27

the Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute even without notice or hearing.

28

See id. at 633.
-2-

1

In determining whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of the case,

2

the Court must weigh the following five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious

3

resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to

4

the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the

5

availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988)

6

(quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). “The first two of these

7

factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the fourth factor cuts against

8

a default or dismissal sanction. Thus the key factors are prejudice and availability of lesser

9

sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnson, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990).

10

Here, the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiff’s failure

11

to serve Defendants prevents the case against them from proceeding in the foreseeable future.

12

The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. The fifth factor requires the Court

13

to consider whether a less drastic alternative is available.

14

The Court finds that only one less drastic sanction is realistically available. Rule

15

41(b) provides that a dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as an adjudication upon the

16

merits “[u]nless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies.” In the instant case,

17

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

18

complaint and this action will therefore be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule

19

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

20
21
22

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure this action is dismissed without prejudice.
DATED this 10th day of December, 2011.

23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-