United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE
Jennifer Dorsey U.S. District Judge.
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.” That deadline passed without amendment,
so I dismiss and close this case.
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,
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. 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.
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
 ECF No. 3 at 6 (emphasis
 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;
Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.
 See Anderson v. Air West, 542
F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262;
Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779