United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER [ECF 31, 35, 36]
JENNIFER A. DORSEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
17, 2017, I granted Dollar General Market's motion to
quash service, explained to plaintiff Natasha Hicks the
deficiencies in her service, and gave her an additional 30
days to properly serve Dolgen Midwest, LLC, dba Dollar
General. I warned Hicks that her failure to serve
Dolgen Midwest with a copy of the amended complaint and
summons by August 16, 2017, would result in dismissal without
further notice. When Hicks asked for additional time, I
gave her a final deadline of September 15, 2017, to serve
Dolgen. I warned her that “[f]ailure to do
so will result in this case being dismissed without further
notice” and that “[t]his deadline will not be
extended further without extraordinary
of serving Dolgen as ordered, on the eve of the deadline,
Hicks filed a motion to amend her complaint a second time,
then on the September 15th service deadline, she filed a
motion asking the court to direct the U.S. Marshal Service to
serve process for her. Dolgen countermoves to dismiss this case,
as the court promised it would if Hicks failed to meet the
September 15th service deadline.
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 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. A court's
warning to a party that its 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. Accordingly,
With good cause appearing and no reason to delay, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 36] is GRANTED; this case
is DISMISSED for failure to serve it by the
court's extended deadline.
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs remaining motions
[ECF Nos. 31, 35] are DENIED as moot, and
all hearings and deadlines are VACATED.
Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS
 ECF No. 25.
 ECF No. 28.
 ECF No. 31.