United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
Giovanni Kurtze brings this civil-rights case under §
1983 for events he alleges occurred during his incarceration
at the Clark County Detention Center. On April 23, 2019, I ordered
Kurtze to file a third-amended complaint by May 24,
2019. I expressly warned him that his failure to
timely comply with the order would result in the dismissal of
this case with prejudice for failure to state a
claim. The deadline has passed, and Kurtze has
not filed a third-amended complaint.
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. Kurtze was warned
that his case would be dismissed with prejudice for failure
to state a claim if he failed to file a third-amended
complaint by May 24, 2019. So, Kurtze had adequate warning that
his failure to file a third-amended complaint by the deadline
would result in this case's dismissal.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is
DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a
claim based on Kurtze's failure to file a third-amended
complaint in compliance with this court's April 23, 2019,
Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and
CLOSE THIS CASE.
 ECF No. 7 (second amended
 ECF No. 13 (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;