Langford v. Dzurenda ( 2021 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 JUSTIN ODELL LANGFORD, Case No. 3:20-cv-00159-RFB-CLB 4 Plaintiff ORDER v. 5 JAMES DZURENDA et al., 6 Defendants 7 8 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9 1983 by a state prisoner. On January 11, 2021, this Court issued an order denying 10 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because Plaintiff had “three strikes” 11 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF No. 5). The Court informed Plaintiff that if he did 12 not pay the $400.00 filing fee in full within 30 days from the date of that order, the Court 13 would dismiss the action without prejudice. (Id. at 2). The 30-day period has now expired 14 and Plaintiff has not paid the full filing fee of $400.00. 15 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 16 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 17 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 18 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 19 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 20 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 21 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 22 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 23 complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 24 for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 25 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 26 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 27 1 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with 2 local rules). 3 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey 4 a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: 5 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 6 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 7 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 8 See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 9 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 10 Here, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in expeditiously 11 resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, weigh in favor of 12 dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to Defendants, also weighs in favor of 13 dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay 14 in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air 15 West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public policy favoring 16 disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of 17 dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his failure to obey 18 the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of alternatives” 19 requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; Henderson, 779 20 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to pay the full filing fee within 30 days 21 expressly stated: “It is further ordered that this action will be dismissed without prejudice 22 unless Plaintiff pays the $400.00 filing fee in full within thirty (30) days of entry of this 23 order.” (ECF No. 5 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result 24 from his noncompliance with the Court’s order to pay the full filing fee within 30 days. 25 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 26 Plaintiff’s failure to pay the $400.00 filing fee in compliance with this Court’s January 11, 27 2021, order. 1 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court close the case and enter judgment 2|| accordingly. 4 DATED THIS 25" day of February 2021. : 3 UNITED STAFESBt1S TRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28