Gray v. City of Las Vegas ( 2020 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 WILLIAM GRAY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01839-KJD-EJY 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. 7 LAS VEGAS CITY JAIL, 8 Defendant. 9 10 11 On October 7, 2020, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file both a 12 complaint and a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full 13 filing fee of $400 on or before December 7, 2020. (ECF No. 3 at 2-3). The December 7, 14 2020 deadline has now expired and Plaintiff has not filed a complaint, an application to 15 proceed in forma pauperis, paid the full $400 filing fee, or otherwise responded to the 16 Court's order. 17 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 18 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 19 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 20 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 21 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 22 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 23 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 24 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 25 complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 26 for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 27 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 28 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 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. 21 The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a complaint and an application to 22 proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee on or before December 7, 2020 23 expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does not file a complaint 24 and a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis with all three documents or 25 pay the full $400 filing fee for a civil action on or before December 7, 2020, the Court will 26 dismiss this action without prejudice for Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, under a 27 new case number, when Plaintiff is able to file a complaint and has all three documents 28 needed to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pays the full $400 filing fee.” (ECF No. 3 at 3). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from noncompliance with the Court’s order to file a complaint and an application to 3 proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee on or before December 7, 2020. 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice 5 | based on Plaintiff's failure to file a complaint and an application to proceed in forma 6 | pauperis or pay the full filing fee in compliance with this Court’s order dated October 7, 7| 2020. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment 9) accordingly and close this case. No additional documents will be filed in this closed case. 40 DATED: December 19, 2020 om 11 ho 12 KENTJ.DAWSON ss—‘—s~s~™S 43 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-