United States District Court, D. Nevada
P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a state prisoner. On May 29,
2019, I dismissed the complaint with leave to amend and
directed Plaintiff Kyle Haney to file an amended complaint
within 30 days. The 30-day period has now expired, and
Haney has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise
responded to my 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.
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
the first two factors-the public's interest in
expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court's
interest in managing the docket-weigh in favor of dismissal.
The third factor, risk of prejudice to the 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. The fourth factor-public policy favoring
disposition of cases on their merits-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. My order requiring Haney to file an
amended complaint within 30 days expressly stated: “IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Haney fails to file an amended
complaint curing the deficiencies, this action will be
dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a
claim.” Thus, Haney had adequate warning that
dismissal would result from his noncompliance with my order.
therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with
prejudice based on Plaintiff Kyle Haney's failure to
state a claim.
further ordered that the motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 1) is
DENIED as moot.
further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment
accordingly and close this case.
 ECF No. 5 at 13.
 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;