United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Jennifer A. Dorsey U.S. District Judge
Thad Aubert submitted a letter to the court seeking
clarification on some conflicting advice he received from
fellow inmates. 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. I expressly warned him that his failure to
comply with or otherwise respond to this order would result
in dismissal without further prior notice. The deadline has
passed, and Aubert has done neither.
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-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. 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. 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
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.
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.
 ECF No. 1 (letter).
 ECF No. 3 (order).
 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;