United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE ECF NO.
JENNIFER DORSEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
action began with a pro se civil rights complaint
filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a state prisoner.
On August 16, 2019, this Court issued an order directing
Plaintiff to file his updated address with this Court within
thirty (30) days. The thirty-day period has now expired, and
Plaintiff has not filed his updated address or otherwise
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
instant case, the first two factors, the public's
interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the
court's interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor
of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to
defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since 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 - public policy
favoring disposition of cases on their merits - is greatly
outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed
herein. Finally, 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. The Court's order
requiring plaintiff to update his address within 30 days
expressly stated: “It is further ordered that, if
Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court shall
dismiss this case without prejudice.” Thus, plaintiff
had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his
noncompliance with the Court's order.
therefore ordered that THIS ACTION IS
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on plaintiff's
failure to file an updated address in compliance with this
Court's August 16, 2019, order; the application to
proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 1-1] is
DENIED as moot; and the Clerk of Court is directed
to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE.
 ECF No. 5.
 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