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.

Tagle v. State

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 9, 2018

Victor Tagle, Plaintiff
v.
State of Nevada, et al., Defendants

          ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

          JENNIFER A. DORSEY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Pro se plaintiff Victor Tagle, Sr., brings this “tort action” for events that allegedly occurred during his incarceration with the Nevada Department of Corrections.[1] On June 1, 2018, I denied his application to proceed in forma pauperis because he has three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and failed to demonstrate that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury.[2] I gave him until June 30, 2018, to pay the full $400 filing fee.[3] I expressly warned him that his case would be dismissed if he failed to pay the filing fee by that deadline.[4]The deadline has passed, and Tagle has not paid the filing fee.

         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.[5] 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.[6] 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.[7]

         I find that the first two factors-the public's interest in expeditiously resolving the litigation and the court's interest in managing its 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.[8] 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.[9] Tagle was warned that his case would be dismissed if he failed to pay the $400 filing fee in full by June 30, 2018.[10] So, Tagle had adequate warning that his failure to pay the fee would result in this case's dismissal.

         Conclusion

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on Tagle's failure to pay the full filing fee in compliance with this court's June 1, 2018, order.

         . . .

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

---------

Notes:

[1] ECF No. 1-1 (tort action).

[2] ECF No. 16.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.


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.