From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alarcon v. Pinal Cnty. Jail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jun 26, 2014
CIV-14-163-PHX-RCB (MHB) (D. Ariz. Jun. 26, 2014)

Opinion

CIV-14-163-PHX-RCB (MHB)

06-26-2014

Javier V. Alarcon, Plaintiff, v. Pinal County Jail, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff Javier V. Alarcon, who is confined in the Pinal County Adult Detention Center, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). The Court screened the Complaint May 9, 2014, and ordered Defendants to answer (Doc. 5). Further, in the screening Order, Plaintiff was directed to file and serve a notice of change of address in accordance with Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to timely comply with the provisions set forth in the screening Order, the action would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On May 27, 2014, the docket reflected that mail sent from the Clerk of the Court to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. (Doc. 9.) Having failed to notify the Court of a new address, the Court ordered that no later than "ten (10) days from the date of [its] Order, Plaintiff shall either: (1) file a notice of change of address, or (2) show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute in light of his failure to file a notice of change of address." (Doc. 10.) The time for responding has expired, and Plaintiff has not responded to the Order to show cause or, otherwise, communicated with the Court. The Court, therefore, will determine whether dismissal is appropriate.

Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. See Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9 Cir. 1978). Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action." In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31 (1962), the Supreme Court recognized that a federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute, even though the language of Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure appears to require a motion from a party. Moreover, in appropriate circumstances, the Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute even without notice or hearing. See id. at 633.

In determining whether Plaintiff's failure to prosecute warrants dismissal of the case, the Court must weigh the following five factors: "(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions." Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9 Cir. 1988) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9 Cir. 1986)). "The first two of these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the fourth factor cuts against a default or dismissal sanction. Thus the key factors are prejudice and availability of lesser sanctions." Wanderer v. Johnson, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9 Cir. 1990).

Here, the first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiff's failure to respond to Court orders prevents the case from proceeding in the foreseeable future. The fourth factor, as always, weighs against dismissal. The fifth factor requires the Court to consider whether a less drastic alternative is available. The Court has already ordered Plaintiff to (1) file a notice of change of address, or (2) show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute in light of his failure to file a notice of change of address. Plaintiff has not responded.

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 merits unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies. In the instant case, the Court finds that a dismissal with prejudice would be unnecessarily harsh. The Complaint and this action will therefore be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure this action is dismissed without prejudice.

__________

Stephen M. McNamee

Senior United States District Judge


Summaries of

Alarcon v. Pinal Cnty. Jail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jun 26, 2014
CIV-14-163-PHX-RCB (MHB) (D. Ariz. Jun. 26, 2014)
Case details for

Alarcon v. Pinal Cnty. Jail

Case Details

Full title:Javier V. Alarcon, Plaintiff, v. Pinal County Jail, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Jun 26, 2014

Citations

CIV-14-163-PHX-RCB (MHB) (D. Ariz. Jun. 26, 2014)