United States District Court, D. Nevada
Kelvin L. Spann, Plaintiff
Bryant Williams, Sr., et al., Defendants
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
JENNIFER A. DORSEY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
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. I screened Spann's original complaint
and found that his sole
deliberate-indifference-to-serious-medical-needs claim was
insufficiently pled. 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. Spann initially had until April 2, 2018,
to file his amended complaint, but that deadline was extended
until May 2, 2018. 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. The extended deadline is two
weeks expired, and Spann still has not filed an amended
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. 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.
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.
FURTHER ORDERED that the application to proceed in forma
pauperis [ECF No. 1] is DENIED as moot.
Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT
accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE.
 ECF No. 1-1.
 ECF No. 4 at 5.
 Id. at 7.
 ECF No. 8.
 ECF Nos. 4, 8.