Mahdi 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
KAB
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Nimo Hassan Mahdi,
Plaintiff,
v.
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-03860-PHX-JAT (CDB)
ORDER
On October 16, 2025, Plaintiff Nimo Hassan Mahdi, who was then confined in a
Maricopa County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint (Doc. 1) and an Application to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). That same day, the Clerk of Court sent Plaintiff a
Notice of Assignment. (Doc. 4.) On October 29, 2025, the Notice was returned as
undeliverable, with a notation on the envelope indicating that Plaintiff is “no longer in
custody.” (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff has not filed a Notice of Change of Address, or in any way
notified the Court of his current address. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is unable to re-
mail the Notice to Plaintiff.
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, which
Plaintiff used to file his Complaint. 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
Case 2:25-cv-03860-JAT--CDB Document 6 Filed 04/10/26 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
addition, Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.3(d) 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 his 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 his mailing address.” Carey v. King, 856
F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court informed of his 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.
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).
The first, second, and third factors favor dismissal of this case. Plaintiff’s failure to
keep the Court informed of his 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
Case 2:25-cv-03860-JAT--CDB Document 6 Filed 04/10/26 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
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 therefore 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 9th day of April, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-03860-JAT--CDB Document 6 Filed 04/10/26 Page 3 of 3