United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER DISMISSING CASE [ECF NO. 1]
Jennifer A. Dorsey U.S. District Judge
plaintiff Hugo Israel brings this civil-rights case under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for events that allegedly occurred during
his incarceration at the High Desert State
Prison. But Israel's mailing address on file
with the court seems to be out of date, and mail has been
returned as undeliverable. On April 9, 2018, Magistrate Judge
Hoffman ordered Israel to update his mailing address within
30 days and warned him that this case would be dismissed
without prejudice if he failed to do so. That
court-ordered deadline expired more than a week ago, and
Israel still has 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 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. Israel was warned
that his case would be dismissed if he failed to update his
mailing address by the court-ordered deadline. So, Israel had
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
without prejudice based on Israel's failure to
comply with this court's April 9, 2018, order.
FURTHER ORDERED that Israel's application to proceed
in forma pauperis [ECF No. 1] is DENIED as
Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER
JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE.
 ECF No. 1-1.
 See, e.g., ECF No. 6.
 ECF No. 5.
 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);