United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER DISMISSING CASE [ECF NO. 1]
Jennifer A. Dorsey U.S. District Judge
action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a former state prisoner. On
May 22, 2019, this Court issued an order giving plaintiff 30
days to advise the court of his updated
address. That deadline has now passed, and
plaintiff has not filed his updated address or otherwise
responded to the Court's order.
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.
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. Carter was warned that his case would be
dismissed without prejudice if he failed to update his
address within 30 days,  so he had adequate warning that his
failure to do so would result in this case's dismissal.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is
DISMISSED without prejudice based on plaintiff's
failure to file an updated address in compliance with this
Court's May 22, 2019, order;
FURTHER ORDERED that the application to proceed in forma
pauperis [ECF No. 1] is denied as moot;
Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and
CLOSE THIS CASE.
 ECF No. 3.
 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;