United States District Court, D. Nevada
Eric J. Flores, Plaintiff
State of Nevada, et al., Defendants
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
Jennifer A. Dorsey, U.S. District Judge
Plaintiff Eric J. Flores brings this civil-rights case under
§ 1983 for events he alleges occurred during his
incarceration at High Desert State Prison
(“HDSP”). On February 14, 2019, the Court directed
Flores to file a fully completed application to proceed
in forma pauperis or pay the $400 filing
In a March 6, 2019, order granting an extension of time to
file an application to proceed in forma pauperis,
the Court expressly warned Flores that this case would be
dismissed unless he filed the completed application or paid
the filing fee by April 18, 2019.The deadline has passed, and
Flores has done nothing.
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 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. Flores was warned
that his case would be dismissed if he failed to pay the fee
or submit a completed application by April 18,
2019. So, Flores had adequate warning that his
failure to pay the fee or submit a completed application
would result in this case's dismissal.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is
DISMISSED without prejudice based on Flores's
failure to pay the fee or submit a completed application in
compliance with this Court's March 6, 2019, order; and
Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and
CLOSE THIS CASE.
 ECF No. 1-1 (complaint).
 ECF No. 3 (order).
 ECF No. 5 (order).
 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);
Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir.
1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to
comply with local rules).
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;