Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Navas v. Schumacher

United States District Court, D. Nevada

June 26, 2019

JULIO CESAR NAVAS, Plaintiff,
v.
DEBORA SCHUMACHER, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This 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).[1] (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.

         District 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).

         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 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.

         Here, 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.

         It is 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 order.

         The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

---------

Notes:

[1]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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.