Naranjo v. Smith

Filing 8

ORDER that pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure this action is dismissed without prejudice and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 9/24/2013. (LFIG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Juan Ricardo Naranjo,

10

Plaintiff,

11

vs.

12

Unknown Smith,

13

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-13-01177-ROS-DKD
ORDER

14
15

Plaintiff, formerly an inmate at the Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail, filed a pro se

16

Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 11, 2013 (Doc. 1). The

17

Court issued a Notice of Assignment on that date, a copy of which was mailed to Plaintiff, in

18

which he was warned that failure to file a Notice of Change of Address could result in the case

19

being dismissed (Doc. 2). The Court issued an order for payment of the inmate filing fee on

20

August 28, 2013, and ordered defendant to answer the Complaint (Doc. 5,6). On September

21

3, 2013, copies of the Plaintiff’s Complaint and the Court’s August 28, 2013 Orders mailed to

22

Plaintiff at his last known address were returned as “unable to forward” indicating he was “no

23

longer in custody” (Doc. 7). Plaintiff has not filed a change of address.

24

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

25

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

26

of a plaintiff who has filed a pro se action to keep the Court apprised of his or her current

27

address and to comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. This Court does not have

28

an affirmative obligation to locate Plaintiff. “A party, not the district court, bears the burden

1

of keeping the court apprised of any changes in his mailing address.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d

2

1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court informed of his new address

3

constitutes failure to prosecute.

4

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[f]or failure of the

5

plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move

6

for dismissal of an action.” In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962), the

7

Supreme Court recognized that a federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case

8

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

9

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

10

circumstances, the Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute even without notice

11

or hearing. Id. at 633.

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan,

17

779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). “The first two of these factors favor the imposition of

18

sanctions in most cases, while the fourth factor cuts against a default or dismissal sanction.

19

Thus the key factors are prejudice and availability of lesser sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnson,

20

910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990).

21

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

22

to keep the Court informed of his address prevents the case from proceeding in the foreseeable

23

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

24

Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative is available. Without Plaintiff’s current

25

address, however, certain alternatives are bound to be futile. Here, as in Carey, “[a]n order to

26

show cause why dismissal is not warranted or an order imposing sanctions would only find itself

27

taking a round trip tour through the United States mail.” 856 F.2d at 1441.

28

-2-

1

The Court finds that only one less drastic sanction is realistically available. Rule 41(b)

2

provides that a dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as an adjudication upon the merits

3

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

4

finds that a dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh. The Complaint and this

5

action will therefore be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules

6

of Civil Procedure.

7

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of

8

Civil Procedure this action is dismissed without prejudice and the Clerk of the Court shall enter

9

judgment accordingly.

10

DATED this 24th day of September, 2013.

11
12
13
14
15

Roslyn O. Silver
Senior United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-