Tomas Lopez Rodriguez v. NaphCare, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: October 14, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-03224
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO KM 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Tomas Lopez Rodriguez, No. CV-25-03224-PHX-MTL (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 NaphCare, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On September 4, 2025, self-represented Plaintiff Tomas Lopez Rodriguez, who was 16 confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis, filed a civil rights Complaint 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 18 (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss this action and deny as moot the Application to Proceed. 19 On September 4, 2025, the Clerk of Court mailed a copy of the Notice of 20 Assignment to Plaintiff at the prison, but the Notice of Assignment was returned to the 21 Court as undeliverable because Plaintiff is no longer in custody. Plaintiff has not filed a 22 Notice of Change of Address, or in any way notified the Court of his whereabouts. 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 form. Those instructions state: 25 “You must immediately notify the clerk . . . in writing of any change in your mailing 26 address. Failure to notify the court of any change in your mailing address may result in the 27 dismissal of your case.” (Instructions for a Prisoner Filing a Civil Rights Complaint at 2). 28 . . . . 1 Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co. 2 v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). In this regard, it is 3 the duty of a Plaintiff who has filed a pro se action to keep the Court apprised of his current 4 address, and to comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. This Court does not 5 have an affirmative obligation to locate Plaintiff. “A party, not the district court, bears the 6 burden of keeping the court apprised of any changes in [her] mailing address.” Carey v. 7 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court informed 8 of his new address constitutes a failure to prosecute. 9 Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[f]or failure of the 10 Plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may 11 move for dismissal of an action.” In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 12 (1962), the Supreme Court recognized that a federal district court has the inherent power 13 to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute, even though the language of Rule 14 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure appears to require a motion from a party. 15 Moreover, in appropriate circumstances, the Court may dismiss a complaint or petition for 16 failure to prosecute even without notice or hearing. Id. at 633. 17 In determining whether Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of the 18 case, the Court must weigh the following five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in 19 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk 20 of prejudice to the [Defendants]; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their 21 merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440 (quoting 22 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). “The first two of these factors 23 favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the fourth factor cuts against a default 24 or dismissal sanction. Thus the key factors are prejudice and availability of lesser 25 sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990). 26 Here, the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiff’s 27 failure to keep the Court informed of his address prevents the case from proceeding in the 28 foreseeable future. The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. The fifth factor 1| requires the Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative is available. Without Plaintiff’s current address, however, certain alternatives are bound to be futile. Here, as in 3| Carey, “[a]n order to show cause why dismissal is not warranted . .. would only find itself 4| taking a round trip tour through the United States mail.” 856 F.2d at 1441. 5 The Court finds that only one less drastic sanction is realistically available. Rule 6 | 41(b) provides that a dismissal for failure to prosecute operates as an adjudication upon the 7 | merits “[u]nless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies.” In the instant case, 8 | the Court finds that a dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh. The 9 | Complaint and this action will therefore be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 10 | 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ITIS ORDERED: 12 (1) ‘Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) and this action are dismissed without 13 | prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to 14 prosecute. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 15 (2) Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied as 16 | moot. 17 (3) The docket shall reflect that the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), 18 | has considered whether an appeal of this decision would be taken in good faith and finds 19 | Plaintiff may appeal in forma pauperis. 20 Dated this 14th day of October, 2025. 21

Michael T. Liburdi 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28