United States District Court, D. Nevada
DAVONTTE SMITH, Plaintiff.
LVMPD, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
JENNIFER A. DORSEY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Davontte Smith, brings this civil-rights case under §
1983 for events he alleges occurred during his incarceration
at the Clark County Detention Center. On September 25, 2019, the
Court directed plaintiff to file a fully completed
application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the
$400 filing fee. The Court expressly warned him that his
failure to file the completed application or pay the filing
fee within 30 days from the date of that order would result
in the dismissal of this case. The deadline has passed, and
plaintiff has not 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
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 pay
the fee or submit a completed application within 30 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 days. So, he had adequate warning that his
failure to pay the fee or submit a completed application
would result in this case's dismissal.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is
DISMISSED without prejudice based on plaintiffs
failure to pay the fee or submit a completed application in
compliance with this Court's September 25, 2019, order;
Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and
CLOSE THIS CASE.
 ECF No. 1-1 (complaint).
 ECF No. 3 (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 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;