United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE
JENNIFER A. DORSEY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
5/8/17, after the parties notified the court that this action
had been settled and that the final settlement payment was
due 7/15/17,  the court ordered the parties to file
their stipulation and proposed order to dismiss with
prejudice and close this case by 8/4/17. Nothing was
filed. On 5/1/19, the court ordered the parties to file a
stipulation and proposed order dismissing and closing this
case, or this court will deem this case abandoned and direct
the clerk of court to dismiss and close it. Still, nothing
was filed. I construe this silence as the plaintiff's
intent to abandon this case, and I dismiss it.
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 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 on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (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.
first two factors, the public's interest in expeditiously
resolving this litigation and the court's interest in
managing its docket, weigh in favor of dismissal. The third
factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, 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. A court's
warning to a party that its failure to obey the court's
order will result in dismissal satisfies the fifth
factor's “consideration of alternatives”
requirement. That warning was given here. The fourth
factor-the public policy favoring disposition of cases on
their merits-is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice for failure to prosecute it. The Clerk of Court is
directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.
 ECF No. 18.
 ECF No. 20.
 ECF No. 21.
 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;