Howard v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: April 30, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01234
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 MDR 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Angelica L. Howard, No. CV-25-01234-PHX-JAT (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, 13 Defendant.

15 I. Background 16 Rule 3.4 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure requires an incarcerated litigant to 17 comply with the instructions attached to the court-approved complaint form. Those 18 instructions state: “You must immediately notify the Court . . . in writing of any change in 19 your mailing address. Failure to notify the Court of any change in your mailing 20 address may result in the dismissal of your case.” Instructions for a Prisoner Filing a 21 Civil Rights Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona at 2 22 (emphasis in original). In addition, Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.3(d) requires an 23 unrepresented incarcerated party to submit a notice of change of address within seven days 24 after a change of address. 25 On April 14, 2025, self-represented Plaintiff Angelica L. Howard, who was then 26 confined in a Maricopa County Jail, filed a civil rights Complaint (Doc. 1) and an 27 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). On April 16, the Clerk of Court mailed 28 Plaintiff a Notice of Assignment that, among other things, warned Plaintiff that she must 1 file a notice of change of address if her address changed and that this case would be 2 dismissed if she failed to do so. 3 On April 24, 2025, the Notice of Assignment was returned to the Court, with a 4 notation that Plaintiff was no longer in custody. Plaintiff has not filed a Notice of Change 5 of Address or otherwise notified the Court of her current address. 6 II. Failure to Prosecute 7 Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. Fid. Phila. Tr. Co. v. Pioche 8 Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). In this regard, it is the duty of a self- 9 represented plaintiff to keep the Court apprised of her current address and to comply with 10 the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. This Court does not have an affirmative obligation 11 to locate Plaintiff. “A party, not the district court, bears the burden of keeping the court 12 apprised of any changes in [her] mailing address.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 13 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court informed of her new address 14 constitutes a failure to prosecute. 15 Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “if the plaintiff 16 fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to 17 dismiss the action or any claim against it.” In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 18 629-31 (1962), the Supreme Court recognized that a federal district court has the inherent 19 power to dismiss a case on its own for failure to prosecute, even though the language of 20 Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure appears to require a motion from a 21 party. Moreover, in appropriate circumstances, the Court may dismiss a complaint for 22 failure to prosecute even without notice or hearing. Id. at 633. 23 In determining whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of the 24 case, the Court must weigh the following five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in 25 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk 26 of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 27 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440 (quoting 28 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). “The first two of these factors 1 | favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the fourth factor cuts against a default 2| 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). 4 The first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiff’s failure to 5 | keep the Court informed of her address prevents the case from proceeding in the foreseeable future. The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. The fifth factor 7 | requires the Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative is available. Without 8 | Plaintiffs current address, however, certain alternatives are bound to be futile. Here, as in 9| Carey, “[a]n order to show cause why dismissal is not warranted or an order imposing 10 | sanctions would only find itself taking a round trip tour through the United States mail.” 11 | 856 F.2d at 1441. 12 The Court finds that only one less drastic sanction is realistically available. Rule 13 | 41(b) provides that a dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as an adjudication on the 14 merits “[uJnless the dismissal order states otherwise.” The Court finds a dismissal with 15 | prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh and, therefore, will dismiss the Complaint and this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 17| ITIS ORDERED: 18 (1) ‘Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) and this action are dismissed without 19 | prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to 20 | prosecute. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 21 (2) Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied as 22 | moot. 23 Dated this 30th day of April, 2025. 24 25 A 26 7 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 28