United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND CLOSING CASE
Jennifer A. Dorsey U.S. District Judge.
Joshua Crittendon brings this civil-rights case under §
1983 for events he alleges occurred during his incarceration
at Clark County Detention Center. 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
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. The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has
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. Plaintiff was
warned that his case would be dismissed if he failed to file
a fully completed application or pay the $400 filing
So plaintiff had adequate warning that his failure to pay the
fee or submit a completed application would result in this
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
Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and
CLOSE THIS CASE.
 ECF No. 1-1 (complaint).
 ECF No. 8 (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;