Scott v. Nevada Department of Corrections ( 2021 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 THEREL SCOTT, Case No. 2:20-cv-00114-GMN-BNW 4 Plaintiff ORDER 5 v. 6 NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 7 Defendants 8 9 I. DISCUSSION 10 This action began with a pro se civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 11 by a former state prisoner. On March 8, 2021, this Court issued an order directing Plaintiff 12 to file his updated address and a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis 13 with this Court within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 3.) The thirty-day period has now expired, 14 and Plaintiff has not filed his updated address, filed a non-prisoner application to proceed 15 in forma pauperis, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 16 District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the 17 exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . 18 dismissal” of a case. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 19 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure 20 to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 21 See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for 22 noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 23 1992) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 24 complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal 25 for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of 26 address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming 27 dismissal for failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, /// 1 424 (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 file his updated address and file a 21 non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis with the Court within thirty (30) 22 days expressly stated: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to timely comply 23 with this order, this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice.” (ECF No. 3 at 2.) 24 Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance 25 with the Court’s order to file his updated address and a non-prisoner application to 26 proceed in forma pauperis within thirty (30) days. 27 /// 1 II. CONCLUSION 2 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice based on 3 Plaintiff’s failure to file an updated address and a non-prisoner application to proceed in 4 forma pauperis in compliance with this Court’s March 8, 2021, order. 5 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court will enter judgment accordingly. 6 7 DATED THIS ____ day of May 2021. 7 8 Gloria M. Navarro, Judge 9 United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27