United States District Court, D. Nevada
MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a former county inmate.
On June 4, 2018, this Court issued an order denying the
application to proceed in forma pauperis, without
prejudice, because the application was
incomplete.(ECF No. 3.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to
file a fully complete application to proceed in forma
pauperis or pay the full filing fee of $400.00 within
thirty days from the date of that order. (Id. at 2.)
The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not
filed another application to proceed in forma
pauperis, paid the full filing fee, or otherwise
responded to the Court's order.
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. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L. A.,
782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 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. 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 Serv., 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).
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. 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;
Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the
public's interest in expeditiously resolving this
litigation and the Court's interest in managing the
docket, weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk
of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of
dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the
occurrence of unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered
by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v.
Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth
factor - public policy favoring disposition of cases on their
merits - is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of
dismissal discussed herein. Finally, 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. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at
1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33;
Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court's order
requiring Plaintiff to file another application to proceed
in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee within
thirty days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that if Plaintiff does not timely comply with this order,
dismissal of this action may result.” (ECF No. 3 at 2.)
Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would
result from his noncompliance with the Court's order.
therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without
prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to file another
application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the
full filing fee in compliance with this Court's June 4,
further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment
At the time of that order, Plaintiff
was in the custody of the Washoe County Detention Facility.
(See ECF No. 3 n.1.)
It also appears that Plaintiff has
failed to update his change of address with the Court.
(See ECF No. 4.) Pursuant to Nevada Local Rule of
Practice IA 3-1, a “pro se party must immediately file
with the court written notification of any change of mailing
address, email address, telephone number, or facsimile
number. The notification must include proof of service on
each opposing party or the party's attorney. Failure to
comply with this rule may result in the dismissal of ...