United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
Jennifer A. Dorsey U.S. District Judge.
Orvid Garrett brings this civil-rights case under § 1983
for events he alleges occurred during his incarceration at
Southern Desert Correctional Center
(“SDCC”). On August 6, 2019, the Court directed
Garrett to file a fully completed application to proceed
in forma pauperis or pay the $400 filing
The Court expressly warned him that his failure to file the
completed application or pay the filing fee within 30 days
from the date of that order would result in the dismissal of
this case. The deadline has passed, and Garrett has
not 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,
and 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. Garrett was warned that his case would be
dismissed if he failed to pay the fee or submit a completed
application within 30 days. So, Garrett had adequate warning
that his failure to pay the fee or submit a completed
application would result in this case’s dismissal.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is
DISMISSED without prejudice based on Garrett’s
failure to pay the fee or submit a completed application in
compliance with this Court’s August 6, 2019, order; and
Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and
CLOSE THIS CASE.
 ECF No. 1-1 (complaint).
 ECF No. 3 (order).
 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; G ...