United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Jennifer A. Dorsey United States District Judge.
plaintiff Jason Altheide is serving two consecutive life
sentences without the possibility of parole after he was
convicted as a habitual criminal. He filed this civil-rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with an incomplete
application to proceed in forma pauperis,
Magistrate Judge Koppe allowed Altheide until October 20,
2017, to file a completed pauper application or pay the full
$400 filing fee to avoid having this case
dismissed. The deadline has now expired, and Altheide
has not filed a completed application, paid the 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
that the first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal. The
risk-of-prejudice factor 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. The fourth factor is greatly outweighed
by the factors in favor of dismissal, and 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. Judge Koppe warned Altheide that if he did
not comply with her order, “dismissal of this action
may result.” He did not comply, so dismissal is
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is
DISMISSED without prejudice to
Altheide's ability to file a new § 1983 civil-rights
complaint along with a completed pauper application or the
$400 filing fee.
Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE
 See ECF No. 1-1 at 1; see
also Nev. Dep't of Corrections,
http://doc.nv.gov/Inmates/Home (Last visited Oct.
31, 2017) (click on “Inmate Search” and then
search by name for Jason Altheide or by offender ID
 ECF No. 1.
 ECF Nos. 3, 7.
 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;