United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Jennifer A. Dorsey U.S. District Judge
Plaintiff
Thad Aubert submitted a letter to the court seeking
clarification on some conflicting advice he received from
fellow inmates.[1] On February 5, 2018, I directed Aubert to
submit a complaint and to file a fully complete application
to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $400 filing
fee by March 7, 2018.[2] I expressly warned him that his failure to
comply with or otherwise respond to this order would result
in dismissal without further prior notice.[3] The deadline has
passed, and Aubert has done neither.
District
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.[4] 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.[5] 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
drastic alternatives.[6]
I find
that the first two factors-the public's interest in
expeditiously resolving the litigation and the court's
interest in managing the docket-weigh in favor of dismissing
this case. 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.[7] 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.[8] Aubert was warned
that his case would be dismissed without prejudice if he did
not submit a complaint and file an application to proceed
in forma pauperis or pay the full filing
fee.[9]
So, Aubert had adequate warning that his failure to submit a
complaint and to pay the fee or submit a completed
application would result in this case's dismissal.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is
DISMISSED without prejudice based on Aubert's
failure to submit a complaint and to file an application to
proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee
in compliance with this Court's February 5, 2018, order;
and The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT
accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE.
---------
Notes:
[1] ECF No. 1 (letter).
[2] ECF No. 3 (order).
[3] Id.
[4] Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of
Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).
[5] 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).
[6]
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;
Gha ...