Miles v. Arizona, State of

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: September 29, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-08161
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 NH 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Dylan Miles, No. CV-25-08161-PCT-JAT (ASB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 State of Arizona, 13 Defendants.

15 On August 1, 2025, Plaintiff Dylan Miles, who was confined in a Yavapai County 16 Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an 17 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). On August 1, 2025, the Clerk of Court 18 sent Plaintiff a Notice of Assignment. (Doc. 3.) On August 11, 2025, the Notice was 19 returned as undeliverable, with a notation on the envelope indicating that Plaintiff is “Not 20 in Custody.” (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff has not filed a Notice of Change of Address, or in any 21 way notified the Court of his whereabouts. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is unable to 22 re-mail the Notice to Plaintiff. 23 Rule 3.4 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure requires an incarcerated litigant to 24 comply with the instructions attached to the court-approved Complaint form. Those 25 instructions state: “You must immediately notify the clerk . . . in writing of any change in 26 your mailing address. Failure to notify the court of any change in your mailing address 27 may result in the dismissal of your case.” (Information and Instructions for a Prisoner 28 Filing Civil Rights Complaint at 2). In addition, Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.3(d) 1 requires an unrepresented incarcerated party to submit a notice of change of address within 2 seven days after a change of address. 3 Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. Fid. Phila. Tr. Co. v. Pioche 4 Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). In this regard, it is the duty of a 5 plaintiff who has filed a pro se action to keep the Court apprised of his current address and 6 to comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. This Court does not have an 7 affirmative obligation to locate Plaintiff. “A party, not the district court, bears the burden 8 of keeping the court apprised of any changes in his mailing address.” Carey v. King, 856 9 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court informed of his new 10 address constitutes a failure to prosecute. 11 Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[f]or failure of the 12 plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may 13 move for dismissal of an action.” In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 14 (1962), the Supreme Court recognized that a federal district court has the inherent power 15 to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute, even though the language of Rule 16 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure appears to require a motion from a party. 17 Moreover, in appropriate circumstances, the Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to 18 prosecute even without notice or hearing. Id. at 633. 19 In determining whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of the 20 case, the Court must weigh the following five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in 21 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk 22 of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 23 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440 (quoting 24 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). “The first two of these factors 25 favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the fourth factor cuts against a default 26 or dismissal sanction. Thus the key factors are prejudice and availability of lesser 27 sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990). 28 1 The first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiff's failure to 2| keep the Court informed of his address prevents the case from proceeding in the foreseeable 3| future. The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. The fifth factor requires 4| the Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative is available. Without □□□□□□□□□□□ 5 | current address, however, certain alternatives are bound to be futile. Here, as in Carey, 6| “[a]n order to show cause why dismissal is not warranted ... would only find itself taking 7 | around trip tour through the United States mail.” 856 F.2d at 1441. 8 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 10 | merits “[u]nless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies.” In the instant case, 11 | the Court finds that a dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh. The Court 12 | will dismiss the Complaint and this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the 13 | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court will deny Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as moot. 15| ITIS ORDERED: 16 (1) ‘Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) and this action are dismissed without 17 | prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to 18 | prosecute. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 19 (2) Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied as 20 | moot. 21 (3) | The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 22 | § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. 23 Dated this 29th day of September, 2025. 24 25 26 7 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 28