United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
Jennifer A . Dorsey U.S. District Judge.
action began with a pro se civil rights complaint
filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a person in the
custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections. On July 29,
2019, this court issued an order denying the application to
proceed in forma pauperis, without prejudice,
because the application was incomplete. The court ordered
the plaintiff to file a fully complete application to proceed
in forma pauperis, including a properly executed
financial certificate and an inmate account statement, or pay
the full $400 filing fee within 30 days. That 30-day
deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not filed another
application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the
full filing fee, or otherwise responded to the court's
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 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 on one of these grounds, the court must consider: (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.
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 of the
plaintiff's claims. The third factor, risk of prejudice
to 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. A court's warning to a party that
its failure to obey the court's order will result in
dismissal satisfies the fifth factor's
“consideration of alternatives” requirement,
that warning was given here. The fourth factor-the public
policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits-is
greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal.
with good cause appearing and no reason to delay, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that THIS ACTION IS DISMISSED
without prejudice based on plaintiffs failure to file a
complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or
pay the full filing fee in compliance with this court's
July 29, 2019, order.
Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and
CLOSE THIS CASE.
 ECF No. 3 at 1-2.
 Id. at 2.
 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;