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.

Moorish National Republic Federal Government v. U.S. Department of State

United States District Court, D. Nevada

October 29, 2019

Moorish National Republic Federal Government; and Antonio El, Consulate General, Plaintiff
v.
U.S. Department of State, et al., Defendants

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE [ECF NO. 5]

          Jennifer A. Dorsey U.S. District Judge

         On October 11, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation that the district court dismiss this case because the plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Court's orders to file a new application to proceed in forma pauperis and to update their mailing address with the court.[1] The deadline for objections to that report and recommendation passed without any filing from the plaintiffs, and “no review is required of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation unless objections are filed.”[2]

         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.[3] 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.[4] 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.[5]

         The 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 plaintiff's 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.[6] 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, [7] and that warning was given here.[8] The fourth factor-the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits-is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal.

         Accordingly, with good cause appearing and no reason to delay, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 5] is ADOPTED, and this case is DISMISSED for failure to file a notice of changed address and new IFP application as directed by the Court The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE THIS CASE.

---------

Notes:

[1] ECF No. 5.

[2] Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

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

[4] 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).

[5] 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.

[6] See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).

[7] Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d ...


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.