United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Jennifer A. Dorsey, U.S. District Judge
plaintiff Percy Lavae Bacon has three strikes and must pay
the full $400 filing fee in advance for his § 1983
claims unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical
injury. So, he moved to proceed in forma
pauperis under the imminent-danger exception, alleging
that he is in imminent danger of losing sight in his right
Magistrate Judge Nancy Koppe denied the motion without
prejudice, explaining that Bacon “must first submit a
complaint and an application to proceed in forma
pauperis . . . before the Court can evaluate whether
[his] complaint makes a plausible allegation that [he] faced
imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of
filing.” Judge Koppe then gave Bacon 30 days to
file a complaint and a fully complete pauper application. She
also warned him that his case may be dismissed if he did not
comply with her order. That 30-day deadline has come and gone,
and Bacon has filed nothing.
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 favoring 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. Bacon was warned
that his case would be dismissed without prejudice if he
failed to submit a complaint and file a completed application
or pay the filing fee within 30 days. So, Bacon had
adequate warning that his failure to submit a complaint and
file a completed application or pay the filing fee would
result in this case's dismissal.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is
DISMISSED without prejudice based on Bacon's
failure to submit a complaint and file a completed
application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the
filing fee in compliance with this Court's February 23,
2018, order. The Clerk of Court is directed
to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and
CLOSE THIS CASE.
 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
 ECF No. 1.
 ECF No. 3 at 1.
 Id. at 2.
 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;