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.

Stark v. Nevada Board of Prison Commissioners

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 16, 2019

ROLAND STARK, Plaintiff
v.
NEVADA BOARD OF PRISON COMMISSIONERS, et al., Defendants

          ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE

          Jennifer Dorsey U.S. District Judge.

         Plaintiff Roland Stark brings this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that his rights to due process and equal protection and against ex post facto laws were violated and that defendants conspired to violate these rights. Upon screening, I found that Stark had not alleged facts sufficient to show that a court previously has invalidated the duration of his confinement on the sentences at issue in his complaint, so I dismissed his claims without prejudice and gave him until June 28, 2019, to amend his complaint. I warned Stark in bold type: “If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint by June 28, 2019, this action will be dismissed without prejudice and closed.[1] That deadline passed without amendment, so I dismiss and close this case.

         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.[2] 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.[3] 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.[4]

         I find 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.[5] 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 file an amended complaint will result in dismissal satisfies the consideration-of-alternatives requirement.[6] Stark was warned that his case would be dismissed without prejudice if he failed to file a timely amended complaint, and his failure to amend has left him without any viable claims. So, Stark had adequate warning of this likelihood.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on Stark's failure to file an amended complaint by the court-ordered deadline. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 1] is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY and CLOSE THIS CASE.

---------

Notes:

[1] ECF No. 3 at 6 (emphasis original).

[2] Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).

[3] 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).

[4] 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.

[5] See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).

[6] Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d ...


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.