United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
JENNIFER A. DORSEY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Domonic Ronaldo Malone brings this civil-rights case under
§ 1983 for events he alleges occurred during his
incarceration at High Desert State Prison. On October 28,
2019, I ordered Malone to file a second-amended complaint by
November 25, 2019. I expressly warned him that his failure to
timely comply with the order would result in the dismissal of
this case. The deadline has passed, and Malone has
not filed a second-amended complaint.
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. Malone was warned
that his case would be dismissed with prejudice if he failed
to file a second-amended complaint by November 25,
2019. So, Malone had adequate warning that his
failure to file a second-amended complaint by the deadline
would result in this case's dismissal.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is
DISMISSED with prejudice based on Malone's
failure to file a second-amended complaint in compliance with
this court's October 28, 2019, order;
FURTHER ORDERED that Malone's application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 1] is
DENIED as moot; and
Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and
CLOSE THIS CASE.
 ECF No. 3 (first amended
 ECF No. 4 (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);