Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Crittendon v. Macham

United States District Court, D. Nevada

October 29, 2019

JOSHUA CRITTENDON, Plaintiff
v.
MACHAM, et al ., Defendants

          ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND CLOSING CASE

          Jennifer A. Dorsey U.S. District Judge.

         Plaintiff Joshua Crittendon brings this civil-rights case under § 1983 for events he alleges occurred during his incarceration at Clark County Detention Center.[1] On September 18, 2019, the magistrate judge denied plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice because the application was incomplete and gave him 30 days to file a fully completed application or pay the $400 filing fee.[2] The court expressly warned plaintiff that his failure to file the completed application or pay the filing fee by that deadline would result in the dismissal of this case.[3] The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has done neither.

         District 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.[4] 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.[5] 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 drastic alternatives.[6]

         I find 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.[7] 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.[8] Plaintiff was warned that his case would be dismissed if he failed to file a fully completed application or pay the $400 filing fee.[9] So plaintiff had adequate warning that his failure to pay the fee or submit a completed application would result in this case's dismissal.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on plaintiff's failure to file a fully completed application or pay the $400 filing fee in compliance with this Court's September 18, 2019, order; and

         The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE.

---------

Notes:

[1] ECF No. 1-1 (complaint).

[2] ECF No. 8 (order).

[3] Id.

[4] Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).

[5] 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).

[6] 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; Gha ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.