McIntyre v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO JL
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Valerie McIntyre,
Plaintiff,
v.
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-04013-PHX-SHD (DMF)
ORDER
On October 27, 2025, Plaintiff Valerie McIntyre, who was then confined in a
Maricopa County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). That same
day, the Clerk of Court mailed a Notice of Assignment to Plaintiff at her address of record.
On November 10, 2025, the mail was returned to the Court as undeliverable because
Plaintiff is no longer in custody. Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address or
otherwise informed the Court of her whereabouts.
Rule 3.4 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure requires an incarcerated litigant to
comply with the instructions attached to the court-approved Complaint form. Those
instructions state: “You must immediately notify the clerk . . . in writing of any change in
your mailing address. Failure to notify the court of any change in your mailing address
may result in the dismissal of your case.” (Information and Instructions for a Prisoner
Filing Civil Rights Complaint at 2). In addition, Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.3(d)
Case 2:25-cv-04013-SHD--DMF Document 6 Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
requires an unrepresented incarcerated party to submit a notice of change of address within
seven days after a change of address.
Plaintiff has the general duty to prosecute this case. Fid. Phila. Tr. Co. v. Pioche
Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). In this regard, it is the duty of a
plaintiff who has filed a pro se action to keep the Court apprised of her current address and
to comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. This Court does not have an
affirmative obligation to locate Plaintiff. “A party, not the district court, bears the burden
of keeping the court apprised of any changes in [her] mailing address.” Carey v. King, 856
F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court informed of her new
address constitutes a failure to prosecute.
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. 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, 856 F.2d at 1440 (quoting
Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th 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. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990).
. . . .
Case 2:25-cv-04013-SHD--DMF Document 6 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiff’s failure to
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
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
Carey, “[a]n order to show cause why dismissal is not warranted . . . would only find itself
taking a round trip tour through the United States mail.” 856 F.2d at 1441.
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 “[u]nless 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 Court
will dismiss the Complaint and this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis as moot.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) and this action are dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to
prosecute. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.
(2) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied as
moot.
(3) The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3), that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith.
Dated this 20th day of November, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-04013-SHD--DMF Document 6 Filed 11/20/25 Page 3 of 3