Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Spann v. Williams

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 16, 2018

Kelvin L. Spann, Plaintiff
v.
Bryant Williams, Sr., et al., Defendants

          ORDER DISMISSING CASE

          JENNIFER A. DORSEY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         Pro se plaintiff and Nevada state prisoner Kelvin Spann brings this civil-rights case under § 1983 for events that allegedly occurred during his incarceration at various Nevada state prisons.[1] I screened Spann's original complaint and found that his sole deliberate-indifference-to-serious-medical-needs claim was insufficiently pled.[2] So, I dismissed the claim without prejudice and gave Spann leave to amend his complaint if he could plead true facts to cure the deficiencies that I identified.[3] Spann initially had until April 2, 2018, to file his amended complaint, but that deadline was extended until May 2, 2018.[4] I warned Spann in the screening order-and Magistrate Judge Foley warned him in the time-extension order-that this case would be dismissed with prejudice if he failed to file an amended complaint.[5] The extended deadline is two weeks expired, and Spann still has not filed an amended complaint.

         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.[6]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.[7] 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.[8]

         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.[9] 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.[10] Spann was warned-twice- that his case would be dismissed if he failed to submit an amended complaint by the court-ordered deadline. So, Spann had adequate warning that his failure to submit an amended complaint would result in this case's dismissal.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice based on Spann's failure to file an amended complaint and for failure to state a claim.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 1] is DENIED as moot.

         The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE.

---------

Notes:

[1] ECF No. 1-1.

[2] ECF No. 4 at 5.

[3] Id. at 7.

[4] ECF No. 8.

[5] ECF Nos. 4, 8.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.