Magnetic v. State of Nevada ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 INFINITE MASTER MAGNETIC aka Case No. 3:21-cv-00122-MMD-WGC Jesse Jerome Pointer, 7 ORDER Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 On April 28, 2021, Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint within thirty 13 (30) days. (ECF No. 4.) That deadline has has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an 14 amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.1 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, 18 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s 19 failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 20 local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for 21 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 22 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 23 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply 24 with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. 25 U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with 26 27 28 1In fact, the Court’s last order was returned as undeliverable. It appears that Plaintiff has failed to file his updated mailing address as required by Local Rule IA 3-1. 2 lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 3 In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to 4 obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several 5 factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 6 to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 7 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 8 alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 9 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 10 In the instant case, the Court finds that the first two factors, the public’s interest in 11 expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing the docket, 12 weigh in favor of dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendant, also weighs 13 in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of 14 unreasonable delay in filing a pleading ordered by the court or prosecuting an action. 15 See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor—public 16 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—is greatly outweighed by the factors 17 in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that his 18 failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of 19 alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33; 20 Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended 21 complaint within 30 days expressly stated: “[Plaintiff] must file the amended complaint 22 within 30 days from the date of entry of this order . . . if Plaintiff fails to file an amended 23 complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, this action will be dismissed with 24 prejudice.” (ECF No. 4 at 5.) Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would 25 result from his noncompliance with the Court’s orders to file an amended complaint. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on 2 || Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Court’s orders. 3 DATED THIS 2" Day of June 2021. 4 —~. 6 KMRANDA ; CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 3:21-cv-00122

Filed Date: 6/2/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/25/2024