United States District Court, D. Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey United States District Judge
a pro se civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 by a state prisoner. On April 25, 2017, I denied
plaintiff's application to proceed in forma
pauperis without prejudice because the application was
incomplete. I ordered plaintiff to file a fully
complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or
pay the full $400 filing fee within 30 days from the date of
that order. The 30-day period has now expired, and
plaintiff has not filed another application to proceed in
forma pauperis, paid the full filing fee, or otherwise
responded to the court's order.
courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and
“[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose
sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal”
of a case. A court may dismiss an action with
prejudice based on a party's failure to prosecute an
action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply
with local rules. In determining whether to dismiss an
action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court
order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must
consider several 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
instant case, the first two factors-the public's interest
in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the
court's interest in managing the docket-weigh in favor of
dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants,
also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of
injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in
filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an
action. The fourth factor-the public policy
favoring disposition of cases on their merits-is greatly
outweighed by the factors that favor dismissal. Finally, a
court's warning to a party that his failure to obey the
court's order will result in dismissal satisfies the
“consideration of alternatives”
requirement. My order giving the plaintiff 30 days to
file another application or pay the full filing fee expressly
stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if [p]laintiff does
not timely comply with this order, dismissal of this action
may result.” Thus, plaintiff had adequate warning that
dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the
THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice based on plaintiff's failure to file another
application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the
full filing . . . fee in compliance with the April 25, 2017,
order. The Clerk of Court is instructed to CLOSE THIS CASE.
 ECF No. 3 at 1-2.
 Id. at 2.
 Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of
Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).
 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d
52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with
local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,
1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with
an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v.
King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal
for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro
se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address);
Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130
(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court
order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424
(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and
failure to comply with local rules).
 Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831;
Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833
F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61;
Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
 See Anderson v. Air West, 542
F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262;
Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779