United States District Court, D. Nevada
Clara L. Bernabe, Plaintiff
State of Nevada, Clark County, Ditech Financial, LLC, Defendants
ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE
Jennifer A. Dorsey United States District Judge.
22, 2017, the court held oral argument on defendants'
motions to dismiss.Plaintiff, who appears to be filing
documents with a "sovereign citizen" theme, filed a
"writ of erroe qua corum nobis residant, "
challenging this court's authority to set a hearing on
the motions to dismiss (arguing primarily that the undersigned is
a "magistrate" without authority), and then she
failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. At the hearing, I
granted the motions to dismiss on their merits with leave to
amend and gave Bernabe ten days to amend her complaint or
have this case dismissed.
did not file an amended complaint by the ten-day deadline.
She did file a "Writ of Contempt" in which she
claims to be "the court" and purports to hold the
undersigned in contempt of court. Bernabe's attempts and
arguments are without merit, and because she failed to amend
her complaint by the ten-day deadline, I dismiss this action
and direct the Clerk of Court to close this case.
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 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 on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (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 alternatives.
first two factors, the public's interest in expeditiously
resolving this litigation and the court's interest in
managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal. The
defendants properly filed motions to dismiss, the court
noticed and held a hearing on them, but the plaintiff failed
to appear. I granted the motions to dismiss on their merits
and made a record of my ruling but (considering this
circuit's liberal amendment policy) gave Bernabe ten days
to file an amended complaint if she could plead plausible
claims. She did not file an amended complaint, delaying the
progress of this litigation.
third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in
favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises
from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a
pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an
action. Bernabe was given ten days to file an
amended complaint if she could cure the defects in her
original complaint; she failed to do so. Instead, she
continues to challenge this court's jurisdiction to take
any action in this case-which is a particularly ironic
argument considering that it was Bernabe herself who filed
this lawsuit in this court and paid the filing fee to have
this court preside over this case.
court's warning to a party that her failure to obey the
court's order will result in dismissal satisfies the
fifth factor's "consideration of alternatives"
requirement. The fourth factor-the public policy
favoring disposition of cases on their merits-is greatly
outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. And, as I
explained at the duly noticed hearing on the motions to
dismiss, which Bernabe failed to attend, Bernabe's claims
as pled lack merit. So even this factor weighs in favor of
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. The Clerk
of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.
 ECF Nos. 5, 8, 12 (motions); 17
(notice of hearing); 7, 11, 14 (Klingele notices);
24 (minutes of hearing).
 ECF No. 22.
 ECF No. 24 (the minute order states,
"Plaintiff has 10 days to file an amended complaint.
Failure to do so will result in dismissal of ...