United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER DISMISSING AND CLOSING CASE
JENNIFER A. DORSEY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Cornilius Bernard Hargett brings this civil-rights lawsuit to
redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered
in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Nevada. When Hargett's
mail from the court began to be returned, the Court ordered
him to file a notice of changed address by October 4,
2019. That order expressly warned Hargett that
this case would be dismissed if he did not update his address
by the deadline. That order, too, was returned, Hargett has
not updated his address, and his mail continues to be
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
plaintiffs 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 case is DISMISSED
for failure to file a notice of changed address as directed
by the court, and all pending motions [ECF No. 15]
are denied without prejudice as moot The Clerk of Court is
directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS
 ECF No. 20.
 See, e.g., ECF No. 21.
 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