United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
JENNIFER A. DORSEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
plaintiff Justin Lafferty brings this civil-rights action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events that allegedly
occurred while he was incarcerated at the High Desert State
Prison.Lafferty's mailing address that is on
file with the court is still the High Desert State Prison. On
March 22, 2018, Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach ordered
Lafferty to update his mailing address and gave him 30 days
to do so. Judge Ferenbach also warned Lafferty that
his case would be dismissed if he failed to timely comply
with the court's order. That 30-day deadline has come and
gone, and Lafferty has still not updated his address.
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 without
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. Lafferty was
warned that his case would be dismissed without prejudice if
he failed to update his address within 30 days. So, Lafferty was
given adequate warning that his failure to update his address
would result in this case's dismissal.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is
DISMISSED based on Lafferty's failure to update
his address by the court-ordered deadline. This dismissal is
without prejudice to Lafferty's ability to refile his
claims in a new, separate action.
Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER
JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS
 ECF No. 1-1.
 ECF No. 4.
 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;