United States District Court, D. Nevada
MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
action began with a pro se civil rights complaint
filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a state prisoner.
(ECF No. 1-1.) On May 21, 2019, this Court issued an order
denying Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma
pauperis because Plaintiff had “three strikes”
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF No. 9.) The Court
informed Plaintiff that if he did not pay the $400.00 filing
fee in full within 30 days of the date of entry of that
order, the Court would dismiss the action with prejudice.
(Id. at 2.) The 30-day period has now expired, and
Plaintiff has not paid the full filing fee of $400.00.
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 Los
Angeles, 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) (affirming
dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v.
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)
(affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order
requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King,
856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming 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) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply
with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d
1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming 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. See 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.
the Court finds that the 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, 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-the
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. See 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 pay the full filing fee within thirty
days expressly stated: “It is further ordered that
Plaintiff must pay the full filing fee of $400 within 30 days
of the date of entry of this order for this case to proceed.
If Plaintiff fails to timely pay the filing fee, the Court
will dismiss this case with prejudice.” (ECF No. 9 at
2.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would
result from his noncompliance with the Court's order to
pay the full filing fee within 30 days.
therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with
prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to pay the $400.00
filing fee in compliance with this Court's May 21, 2019
Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and
close this case.
The Court's order was returned as
Plaintiff had been transferred to another facility (ECF No.
10); the Court directed the order to be forwarded to
Plaintiff at his new facility and for Plaintiff to file a
notice of change of address (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff has