United States District Court, D. Nevada
Brick P. Houston, Plaintiff,
State of Nevada, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
Jennifer A. Dorsey U.S. District Judge.
Brick P. Houston brings this civil-rights case under §
1983 for events he alleges occurred during his incarceration
at High Desert State Prison. On August 23, 2019, after court
mail sent to Houston was returned,  the magistrate judge ordered
Houston to update his address with the court within 30
days. The magistrate judge expressly warned
Houston that his failure to timely comply with the order
would result in the dismissal of this case. The deadline has
passed, mail to Houston continues to be returned, and Houston
has not filed an updated address.
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. Houston was
warned that his case would be dismissed without prejudice if
he failed to update his address within 30 days.So, Houston
had adequate warning that his failure to update his address
would result in this case's dismissal.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is
DISMISSED without prejudice based on Houston's
failure to file an updated address in compliance with this
court's August 23, 2019, order; and
Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and
CLOSE THIS CASE.
 ECF No. 1-1 (complaint).
 ECF No. 6.
 ECF No. 7 (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);